I'm sick of the dnd community [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Cheesegear

2022-07-03, 03:27 AM

This anti-powergaming mentality that's taken root in the 5e community has become all-encompassing.

COVID and pop-D&D have brought a reasonably-sized new audience to D&D. It's not really clear how long the audience will stick around, given how fast they showed up. But it has...Divided the community, sure.

I also think there's a pretty big divide between the USA and the rest of the world...But that's something you're gonna need to get real specific on. And on this forum I don't think you'll be able to.

DMs and players seem to have unanimously decided that playing creatively is somehow abusive

I would have said the total opposite. That power-gaming is the opposite of playing creatively, since at this point, power-gaming simply involves reading one or more Guides that someone else wrote. And anyone who has read the same Guides you have, knows exactly what you're doing. Oh cool...You're using Tasha's Humanoid to get Darkvision and a Feat...I wonder if it's Crossbow Expert...OMG IT IS! At Level 4, you're gonna get Sharpshooter...OMG you're doing it. Wow. Very cool.

IMO, playing creatively is the opposite of power-gaming, and given that the new audience that's showed up which seems to want to...Copy...Pop-D&D, I would've have said that playing creatively is exactly what everyone wants, more or less. You want to be a Tiefling Druid? Sure! You gonna customise your origin so your Tiefling gets +2 WIS, instead of CHA? ...NO!? You think that rule is dumb and you're going to play something 'sub-optimal' but with a real character and personality and you're gonna blend your infernal heritage with natural magic and you're playing a character...Okay, sure...You sure you don't want the +2 Wis...You know Tasha's lets you, right?

I will admit that the Stormwind Fallacy exists, and that I - and some of my players - will create the character I/we want, then come up with a backstory and personality that justifies the power-gaming, and then actually play that backstory and personality during the game. But I don't think that's what you're talking about.

I have no idea where else to go from here.

I'm don't really understand where you are now:

Community believes that Power-gaming bad. Sure. I can see where people are coming from, but there are ways around it. Especially if you lean hard into the Stormwind Fallacy - as I do.

But playing creatively is bad? I don't think anyone's ever said that, ever...And certainly the incoming audience for D&D would never say that. Sub-optimal doesn't mean bad. Never has, never will. Your character works just fine if you don't have a 16 in your primary stat. Your characters' species will actually inform how you play your character (e.g; Tiefling Druid), and even though your hard numbers aren't the best, you're going to be playing a character and personality...And I'm pretty sure everyone ever, is fine with that.

...Unless 'playing creatively' involves making a joke character that intentionally sucks (e.g; My Wizard has a 10 in INT, he just likes magic...He's not that into it. He's just a guy who found a book with some diagrams, he barely understands it) and actively hamstrings the rest of the party 'because it's what my character would do'. But again, that's something very specific and it's not what I think you're talking about.

H_H_F_F

2022-07-03, 03:57 AM

There is no "D&D community". It's way too big, too diverse and too spread out to generalized like that. Find a table that suits your philosophy of play better. Shouldn't be that hard if you're an English speaker.

I would have said the total opposite. That power-gaming is the opposite of playing creatively, since at this point, power-gaming simply involves reading one or more Guides that someone else wrote. And anyone who has read the same Guides you have, knows exactly what you're doing. Oh cool...You're using Tasha's Humanoid to get Darkvision and a Feat...I wonder if it's Crossbow Expert...OMG IT IS! At Level 4, you're gonna get Sharpshooter...OMG you're doing it. Wow. Very cool.

IMO, playing creatively is the opposite of power-gaming, and given that the new audience that's showed up which seems to want to...Copy...Pop-D&D, I would've have said that playing creatively is exactly what everyone wants, more or less. You want to be a Tiefling Druid? Sure! You gonna customise your origin so your Tiefling gets +2 WIS, instead of CHA? ...NO!? You think that rule is dumb and you're going to play something 'sub-optimal' but with a real character and personality and you're gonna blend your infernal heritage with natural magic and you're playing a character...Okay, sure...You sure you don't want the +2 Wis...You know Tasha's lets you, right?

I get where you're coming from, but I disagree. The "problem" of lacking creative play mechanically (only an issue for a specific very experienced subset of players) isn't a power gaming problem: it's a 5E problem.

Sure, optimizing at that point is not plausible to do creatively - but that's because the scope of the game is limited, and every single interaction between different rules and abilities has been explored and its value determined.

Meaning, the same issue is also present at every power level you choose. ANY character building is Implausible to do creatively. How does playing a tiefling Druid differ, mechanically, from playing a human or Hill Dwarf one? Well, your spell DC is lower, and you have fire resistance and hellish rebuke.

What's "creative" here, mechanically? You didn't do it because you discovered some hitherto unknown interaction between tiefling racial abilities and wildfire druid, that isn't as good as having better Wis but is cool and creative; you did it because you're a "fluff before crunch" player, and that isn't being creative, that's just a style preference. It's not "less powerful but creative new build" it's just... druid.

Compare and contrast to 3.5. Sure, nothing is ever going to beat Pun-Pun, and building a god wizard is trivial at this point - but the game is simply broad enough in scope that the online community is far from having explored every interaction. So mechanically creative character building still has a place to shine, and cool new interactions and exploits are consistently being found and featured in the 3.5 forum here in GiTP.

Does that make 3.5 "better" than 5E? No, not generally. They're just different. 5E has offered a far more lenient learning curve, better balance and easier math. It's more popular for a reason. But if you're looking to do mechanically creative character building, then a game where it's easy to know what every single feat, race and class feature does is simply bot going to provide that so many years into its existence.

Cheesegear

2022-07-03, 04:26 AM

How does playing a tiefling Druid differ, mechanically, from playing a human or Hill Dwarf one? Well, your spell DC is lower, and you have fire resistance and hellish rebuke.

What's "creative" here, mechanically?

Mechanically? Nothing.

How does playing a Tiefling differ from playing a Hill Dwarf (regardless of class)? ...Well ****, if you can't answer that question on your own, no answer I give is going to satisfy you.

Boci

2022-07-03, 04:38 AM

Mechanically? Nothing.

How does playing a Tiefling differ from playing a Hill Dwarf (regardless of class)? ...Well ****, if you can't answer that question on your own, no answer I give is going to satisfy you.

Tieflings and dwarves are each race, but any one character is an individual which should be contributing more. You can have a jolly, cheerful tiefling who enjoys a pint in the tavern and a bitter dwarf with a dark past angry at the world for never really giving him a chance to redeem himself but they're going to try anyway.

Rynjin

2022-07-03, 04:46 AM

Mechanically? Nothing.

How does playing a Tiefling differ from playing a Hill Dwarf (regardless of class)? ...Well ****, if you can't answer that question on your own, no answer I give is going to satisfy you.

There really is little legitimate reason to differentiate in terms of character TBH. Your average Tiefling (or Human for that matter) could have grown up in circumstances very similar to the average Hill Dwarf (or any other race) or even been adopted by them.

Mechanics are in many ways what make a race unique, and those unique facets have been slowly chipped away in 5e. What makes a Dwarf different from a Human that grew up in a coal mining family? The human has about a foot in height and needs to carry a lantern. That's about it.

Azuresun

2022-07-03, 04:48 AM

MrStabby

2022-07-03, 04:51 AM

I think you just need to find like minded people. There isn't really a problem with powergaming per se, but it will cause people to have less fun if you do it at a table less dedicated to powergaming. A lot of people judge suggestions by the yardstick of "would I want to play in game alongside this character" and if the person is proposing a character that is sufficiently gokd in sufficiently many areas with no interesting weaknesses then for many it can be a turn-off.

At the same time these people will also assume the best of intentions and will also assume that you dont want to spoil the fun of others at you table so will try and make you understand (not always diplomatically) why a particular character options unlikely to be fun for your friends.

And sometimes people get bored playing with the same options again and again... another wizard with the same spell list as every other optimised wizard just doesn't excite them.

Good luck in finding a new community that better reflects your interests and priorities though.

H_H_F_F

2022-07-03, 05:01 AM

Mechanically? Nothing.

How does playing a Tiefling differ from playing a Hill Dwarf (regardless of class)? ...Well ****, if you can't answer that question on your own, no answer I give is going to satisfy you.

I was under the impression that the OP was talking about game mechanics when he talked about creative play, not RP and fluff.

Of course, within the right world-building context, race can have plenty of RP significance, and make a huge difference. But at that point, we're back to asking "did you start being excited with the crunch and found your way to be excited about the fluff, or viceversa" - which, as I said, is a matter of style, not creativity. A goblin blood-hunter (Homebrew class by Matt Mercer, for the unfamiliar) is bursting at the seams with interesting character building opportunities IMO, and is good mechanically. A (non-tasha) mountain dwarf armourer doesn't generally offer as much opportunities for building a unique character, in my personal opinion. Of course, every character can be made interesting, but you catch my drift. The fact that it's also less mechanically compelling doesn't make it more creative, IMO.

Cheesegear

2022-07-03, 05:10 AM

There really is little legitimate reason to differentiate in terms of character TBH. Your average Tiefling (or Human for that matter) could have grown up in circumstances very similar to the average Hill Dwarf (or any other race) or even been adopted by them.

A Tiefling that is adopted by Dwarves, IMO, roleplays differently to a Dwarf born to Dwarves. Hell (pun unitended), why was the Tiefling adopted in the first place could have significant ramifications on roleplaying.

What makes a Dwarf different from a Human that grew up in a coal mining family?

Circumstances.

If you are going to force the Human and Dwarf to have identical personalities and character traits, that's on you.

The only reason to believe that Tieflings and Dwarves are the same, is if you believe that species is simply a costume you can discard when it's convenient (e.g; My Tiefling acts like a Human, so I am Human, even though I am Tiefling). Which, at your table, maybe it is. Tasha's Variant Humanoid that can look like anything it wants, certainly seems to lean in that direction.

I was under the impression that the OP was talking about game mechanics when he talked about creative play

Again...What is creative? Conversely, what isn't?

I need more specifics.

Boci

2022-07-03, 05:18 AM

The only reason to believe that Tieflings and Dwarves are the same, is if you believe that species is simply a costume you can discard when it's convenient (e.g; My Tiefling acts like a Human, so I am Human, even though I am Tiefling). Which, at your table, maybe it is. Tasha's Variant Humanoid that can look like anything it wants, certainly seems to lean in that direction.

Its not that humans and tieflings are the same, its they have the same potential. Same way elves are by and large graceful as a population, but you can have a specific dwarf who has a higher dexterity than the average elf.

Mastikator

2022-07-03, 05:40 AM

Tieflings and dwarves are each race, but any one character is an individual which should be contributing more. You can have a jolly, cheerful tiefling who enjoys a pint in the tavern and a bitter dwarf with a dark past angry at the world for never really giving him a chance to redeem himself but they're going to try anyway.

If that's the case then race is just a hat your character wears. Your character's personality, bond, ideal, flaw and place in the world should be informed by their culture. There should be a difference between a cheerful tiefling who enjoys a pint in the tavern and a cheerful dwarf who enjoys a pint in the tavern, even if you think dwarfs and tieflings are the same. The townsfolk will not think they are the same, dwarfs will not think the tiefling is one of them the way they think the dwarf is one of them. A dwarf that acts like a tiefling should not be the same as a tiefling.

If there is cultural information in the setting that you're playing in, and you discard it wholesale then that is the opposite of being a good roleplayer. Not only is it shallow it is also disruptive to the setting and theme of the game.

Boci

2022-07-03, 05:47 AM

If that's the case then race is just a hat your character wears. Your character's personality, bond, ideal, flaw and place in the world should be informed by their culture. There should be a difference between a cheerful tiefling who enjoys a pint in the tavern and a cheerful dwarf who enjoys a pint in the tavern, even if you think dwarfs and tieflings are the same. The townsfolk will not think they are the same, dwarfs will not think the tiefling is one of them the way they think the dwarf is one of them. A dwarf that acts like a tiefling should not be the same as a tiefling.

Not everyone group enjoys the "shallow emotional racism in a fantasy setting" tick boxed for the nth time. There's nothing wrong with exploring it, but there's plenty wrong with inclusing its inclusion makes your group better.

If there is cultural information in the setting that you're playing in, and you discard it wholesale then that is the opposite of being a good roleplayer. Not only is it shallow it is also disruptive to the setting and theme of the game.

I'd its far more shallow and the opposite of a good roleplaying to treat races as a straight jacket. I know you're going to say that's not what you do, but I also don't consider what I'm doing to be "discard it wholesale".

H_H_F_F

2022-07-03, 05:55 AM

Again...What is creative? Conversely, what isn't?

I need more specifics.

In my opinion, mechanical creativity is expressed by independent tinkering with the tools granted by the system to achieve new and exciting results - unnoticed synergies, rules interactions, etcetera.

In my original post, I believed that we were both talking about the mechanical creativity. Under that assumption, I agreed with your stance as I interpreted it - that powergaming in 5E today was not a show of mechanical creativity. I tried to make the case that neither was you counter example, and that mechanical creativity is pretty much dead in today's 5E (on the player side, absent homebrew). I've tried to make the case that unlike, say, 3.5, 5E is in a sense a "solved game" - every possible interaction has been explored, which means there is no place for mechanical creativity.

That only applies to the sort of rules-savvy people that you find on these forums, of course. Ssomeone independently figuring out a coffeelock has still shown mechanical creativity.

I hope that clarifies things - the position I disagreed with was a misinterpretation of what you were saying, as I thought we were both talking about the same thing. Whether or not we disagree on what I've said on the subject is up to you to tell me. If you want the OP's opinion on what makes powergaming in 5E "creative" (a stance I disagree with) you'd have to ask them.

Outside of the mechanical sense, creativity in character building is the same as in every narrative, in my opinion. A character that's round and interesting and feels like it has actual ties to the world-building through everything that's relevant in that world - story, race, class, everything. And those ties mean something unique for their story and their journey. That's a more creative character than "Joe the fighter", who likes to hit things with his sword.

If you're making the case that by virtue of being mechanically optimized, it is made harder for that character to have those traits, I disagree.

Boci

2022-07-03, 06:02 AM

Is acknowledging that tieflings and dwarfs are not the same, and thus the experience of being a dwarf is not the experience of being a tiefling the same as "shallow emotional racism"? I don't think they are. I think turning a blind eye to realities is revealing a privileged position that never had to deal with some harsh realities.

You realize fantasy is sometimes called escapism right? PoC praised the Bridgerton series for being a Victorian England costume drama with plenty of non-white character, and not making racism a theme. They said it was refreshing to see representation where historically there wasn't much, and not have to be reminded that people can sometimes be ****ty to others who look different, as if they were ever in any danger of forgetting that.

Did I say you should treat races as a straight jacket or did I say race should inform roleplaying? Because I feel those are very different things to say.

Yes, and as I said, I don't agree I'm doing what you're accusing me of, so we're equal there.

Is:

"Piss off hellspawn, you're not one of us,"

A valid way to handle a tiefling with a dwarf connection PC? Sure.

But so it:

"They speak dwarven, they can hold their liquor and they can hammer something beautiful in the forge. I don't care what they look like, they're one of us,"

The only wrong thing is to insists that either is better than the other.

H_H_F_F

2022-07-03, 06:13 AM

You realize fantasy is sometimes called escapism right? PoC praised the Bridgerton series for being a Victorian England costume drama with plenty of non-white character, and not making racism a theme. They said it was refreshing to see representation where historically there wasn't much, and not have to be reminded that people can sometimes be ****ty to others who look different, as if they were ever in any danger of forgetting that.

Yes, and as I said, I don't agree I'm doing what you're accusing me of, so we're equal there.

Is:

"Piss off hellspawn, you're not one of us,"

A valid way to handle a tiefling with a dwarf connection PC? Sure.

But so it:

"They speak dwarven, they can hold their liquor and they can hammer something beautiful in the forge. I don't care what they look like, they're one of us,"

The only wrong thing is to insists that either is better than the other.

1st point, both approaches still make the tiefling racial identity meaningful. "I don't care what they look like" is still a different experience than (silence, because there is no discussion of whether or not you're a dwarf).

2nd point: race in D&D can play a theme without that theme being "parallels to real life racism". It can play the same role as aliens play in a lot of sci fi: pondering what it'd be like to interact with foreign minds, that have therefore developed foreign concepts and philosophies. If you make elves immortal in your campaign, than you don't need to explore racism at all to explore the elven experience. The very fact that death isn't looming over them would make an interesting difference in the way they think and act.

Boci

2022-07-03, 06:24 AM

1st point, both approaches still make the tiefling racial identity meaningful. "I don't care what they look like" is still a different experience than (silence, because there is no discussion of whether or not you're a dwarf).

Sure, I was pointing out they don't have to be treated differently in any meaningful way (since yes, being told you won't be treated different is being treated differently to have that be unsaid).

And we seem to agree that matching a race to a less conventional class isn't particularly creative. For example, 3 character, all level 1:

Character A: A tiefling druid, grew up in a tiefling family, fascinated by fire aiming for Circle of Wildfire.

Character B: A tiefling druid raised in a dwarven city who would retreat to the more remote tunnels and peaks whenever they needed a break and is aiming for Circle of Land (Mountain).

Character C: Dwarven druid, raised in a dwarven city, always had a thing for the wildlife they would see in and around the city, aiming for Circle of the Moon.

Are any of these characters more creative than the other? They're all a race a class and an archetype, with a very brief bit of personality/history to explain why they choose a particular direction. Any one of these three could be fleshed out more, or played as is, depending on what the group's preference for fluff and roleplaying is. I don't think any is more creative than the other.

Amechra

2022-07-03, 07:15 AM

Outside of the mechanical sense, creativity in character building is the same as in every narrative, in my opinion. A character that's round and interesting and feels like it has actual ties to the world-building through everything that's relevant in that world - story, race, class, everything. And those ties mean something unique for their story and their journey. That's a more creative character than "Joe the fighter", who likes to hit things with his sword.

Hey, not all of us are frustrated novelists who are trying to inflict our Mary Sue on a group of unsuspecting players who just want to have fun in a dungeon (a fungeon)¹.

More seriously... I feel like the current "D&D zeitgeist" is built around a "superhero crossover" mentality, where each character is the protagonist of their own story with a distinctive aesthetic. Which... look, I'll take Joe The Fighter just so that I don't have to remember yet another backstory that was developed as a writing exercise first and a way to get you into the game second. To use a real-world example, I'm glad that one couple I play with had tons of fun coming up with a big collaborative backstory between the two of them... but boy was it completely irrelevant to the game we were playing. Because we were in a group with 6+ players, and the DM was already cracking under the strain.

¹ I say this as a frustrated novelist who tries to inflict their weird settings on a group of unsuspecting players.

Leon

2022-07-03, 07:26 AM

{Scrubbed}

Liquor Box

2022-07-03, 07:27 AM

Boci

2022-07-03, 07:32 AM

That point might be more relevant if we were talking about whether characters who were PoC should have different stats than people who are white. But we are not, we are comparing two non-human species that have no real world equivalent.

Its still racism though, even if its against a race that doesn't exist in the world. Wizards are probably not real either, but the pureblood movement of the Harry Potter-verse had some very obvious real world parallels.

The bottom line is, "I want to play a tiefling character, can we please not make casual racism a reoccurring thing," is not an invalid sentiment and nor does it somehow makes the player bad at roleplaying.

Dalinar

2022-07-03, 07:36 AM

Liquor Box

2022-07-03, 07:41 AM

Its still racism though, even if its against a race that doesn't exist in the world. Wizards are probably not real either, but the pureblood movement of the Harry Potter-verse had some very obvious real world parallels.

What are you saying is racism exactly? To say that tieflings should trend toward being more charasmatic and dwarves more hardy?

I don't think it is. It's not just that neither represents a real world race. They don't represent different races at all. They clearly are entirely different species. It's not more strange to say that tieflings and dwarfs have different stats than it is to say tigers and leopards have different stats. The degree of differences is clearly more similar to the difference between two different species than it is two different races.

If you disagree and think it is racist, are you able to elaborate on exactly why?

The bottom line is, "I want to play a tiefling character, can we please not make casual racism a reoccurring thing," is not an invalid sentiment and nor does it somehow makes the player bad at roleplaying.

No it's not invalid. Indeed, I think that's what everyone in this thread wants.

I think the point is that we can play a tiefling in a way that is not at all racist by playing one who has a +2 to charisma (whether he was raised by dwarfs or not). You can still give him low charisma and high constitution (which would make him atyptical for tieflings) if you want.

Keltest

2022-07-03, 07:47 AM

Its still racism though, even if its against a race that doesn't exist in the world. Wizards are probably not real either, but the pureblood movement of the Harry Potter-verse had some very obvious real world parallels.

The bottom line is, "I want to play a tiefling character, can we please not make casual racism a reoccurring thing," is not an invalid sentiment and nor does it somehow makes the player bad at roleplaying.

But if you dont want being a tiefling to affect your character, why be a tiefling in the first place? Its not a question of being bad at roleplaying, its a question of what you want out of being a tiefling in the first place. Why be any non-human race if you arent a little interested in exploring what it would be like?

Boci

2022-07-03, 07:56 AM

What are you saying is racism exactly? To say that tieflings should trend toward being more charasmatic and dwarves more hardy?

No its insisting that "dwarfs will not think the tiefling is one of them" is the only correct way to play it that is insisting on including racism. There is nothing wrong with having dwarves accept the tiefling no questions asks, because the setting is cosmopolitan one and culture matters more than race, even if race can entail horns and skin colour. They might not even see themselves and others in terms of race but rather which country/city their from, and distrust the dwarf from the neighbouring Akatia, because they might be an Akatian spy.

No it's not invalid. Indeed, I think that's what everyone in this thread wants.

I disagree. Mastikator described it as "turning a blind eye to realities", as if not checkboxing racism in your fantasy game is somehow downplaying it in the real world.

But if you dont want being a tiefling to affect your character, why be a tiefling in the first place? Its not a question of being bad at roleplaying, its a question of what you want out of being a tiefling in the first place. Why be any non-human race if you arent a little interested in exploring what it would be like?

So the only way you see being able to meaningfully explore what being a non-human is through the character experiencing racism and prejudice? Maybe I want to play a humanoid with devil blood in their veins and innate magic and fire resistance in way that don't involve being discriminated against? Or maybe I just found a cool tiefling pick and decided to base a character off it.

Liquor Box

2022-07-03, 08:03 AM

No its insisting that "dwarfs will not think the tiefling is one of them" is the only correct way to play it that is insisting on including racism. There is nothing wrong with having dwarves accept the tiefling no questions asks, because the setting is cosmopolitan one and culture matters more than race, even if race can entail horns and skin colour. They might not even see themselves and others in terms of race but rather which country/city their from, and distrust the dwarf from the neighbouring Akatia, because they might be an Akatian spy.

Aha, well that's different.

I still don't think it's racism, but a form of discrimination (specieism) that resembles racism. It strikes me as a matter of preference whether the dwarfs treat the tiefling differently or not, and I think either preference is just as valid as the other. Each to their own.

Keltest

2022-07-03, 08:04 AM

So the only way you see being able to meaningfully explore what being a non-human is through the character experiencing racism and prejudice? Maybe I want to play a humanoid with devil blood in their veins and innate magic and fire resistance in way that don't involve being discriminated against? Or maybe I just found a cool tiefling pick and decided to base a character off it.

I think if Im a tall person in a settlement of people who are 4' tall, im going to be bonking my head a lot. Thats not racism, thats just a tiefling being different from a dwarf. I dont have resistance to poison so my drinking habits will be different. My hair grows differently, I need different household products to maintain my horns, heck I even have to sit differently to accommodate my tail. These are all differences that a tiefling would experience from a dwarf without experiencing racism or prejudice from their adopted community.

Boci

2022-07-03, 08:09 AM

Aha, well that's different.

I still don't think it's racism, but a form of discrimination (specieism) that resembles racism. It strikes me as a matter of preference whether the dwarfs treat the tiefling differently or not, and I think either preference is just as valid as the other. Each to their own.

I do as well. I play in racist settings as a player and GM, I don't mind it, but I also don't mind dropping it if some people at the table don't like it, or if I feel it won't contribute meaningfully to the plot or setting and could distract from gameplay.

I just reject the idea that it makes the game better to include racism, like keltest just did. Intentional or not, responding to "I want to play a tiefling character, can we please not make casual racism a reoccurring thing," with "But if you dont want being a tiefling to affect your character, why be a tiefling in the first place?" clearly implies they think racism and discrimination should be key component of playing a tiefling character.

I think if Im a tall person in a settlement of people who are 4' tall, im going to be bonking my head a lot. Thats not racism, thats just a tiefling being different from a dwarf. I dont have resistance to poison so my drinking habits will be different. My hair grows differently, I need different household products to maintain my horns, heck I even have to sit differently to accommodate my tail. These are all differences that a tiefling would experience from a dwarf without experiencing racism or prejudice from their adopted community.

There are a lot of games where such tiny details don't come up for any character, because there's 4+ players and a plot and there just isnt time, and maybe the group isn't interested in that nitty gritty detail. Are you saying its pointless to play a tiefling in such a game where there's not time to comment/referencing bumping your head and drinking less than your peers?

But more importantly, I didn't say I didn't want any of that. You quoted me saying no casual racism and asked me why I'm a playing a tiefling based on that.

H_H_F_F

2022-07-03, 08:20 AM

Hey, not all of us are frustrated novelists who are trying to inflict our Mary Sue on a group of unsuspecting players who just want to have fun in a dungeon (a fungeon)¹.

More seriously... I feel like the current "D&D zeitgeist" is built around a "superhero crossover" mentality, where each character is the protagonist of their own story with a distinctive aesthetic. Which... look, I'll take Joe The Fighter just so that I don't have to remember yet another backstory that was developed as a writing exercise first and a way to get you into the game second. To use a real-world example, I'm glad that one couple I play with had tons of fun coming up with a big collaborative backstory between the two of them... but boy was it completely irrelevant to the game we were playing. Because we were in a group with 6+ players, and the DM was already cracking under the strain.

¹ I say this as a frustrated novelist who tries to inflict their weird settings on a group of unsuspecting players.

I don't think you have to write a protagonist to write an interesting character. Feeling like you belong iin that world is actually often harmed by having a protagonist mindset.

Last character I played in a game, I wrote a 6 page background for. It was for me - I sent the cliffnotes to my DM, and didn't send the full thing to anyone.

It wasn't about anything impressive he did, or wanted to do - I just used the political, economic and religious background the DM informed us of, and imagined how a young gay wannabe-poet from a dying mining town would be shaped by his surroundings and institutions of the world, and how he'd feel about them. The largest chunk of my character history had to do with his ex, who called him Nick (his name was Nicander), which is why I insisted on people calling me Ned and not Nick the entire campaign. This wasn't something I decided in advance would be a theme, it emerged from me writing a backstory. Never told any of the other players or the DM the reason, but it made him feel like a fuller person to me.

I asked the DM what kind of epic stories people tell in the world we played in, and let those influence the kind of Poetry I'd write for Ned to recite when he used inspire courage. I tried to use historical and mythological figures from the world in my writings, and place the poems in places we've heard of or been.

None of that made Ned anywhere near the protagonist, just made him feel like a real person from this world, instead of some detached superhero from a different franchise.

Dimers

2022-07-03, 08:23 AM

This anti-powergaming mentality that's taken root in the 5e community has become all-encompassing.

The anti-powergamers on this forum are loud, but I certainly hear other voices too. For instance, Ludic Savant and strangebloke are always willing to help design a build that's highly effective.

DMs and players seem to have unanimously decided ...

Hm. So when you say "5e community" and "DMs and players" are you referring to actual games where you live, actual games on a forum, forum discussions, celebrity games, all that and more ... ?

I'm sick and tired of it, and I have no idea where else to go from here.

4th edition! :smallbiggrin: Seriously, though, two obvious answers are other forums and other game systems. You're likely to encounter some anti-powergamers everywhere no matter what, but it could be significantly lessened with a change of venue. For example, I can't recall a single time I've heard anyone rant about how every 4th-ed character needs to start with 16+ in their attack stat and "that's not real roleplaying"; a degree of powergaming seems to be expected in the 4e community.

animorte

2022-07-03, 08:59 AM

First, what a strong sentiment to spark this discussion as a thread topic, though I do not feel it is 5e specific.

Fun is the most important aspect of this game, or just about any game. But just below that are two links that lead to optimizing because sometimes that's fun for me, and just plain wonderful to read through all of that. These things do not have to be separate. I've noticed that one of the things I suggest the most is "get creative" or "use your imagination."

I get that there are certain topics that will get a lot of attention, especially on this forum because this is the internet where people express differing opinions. A great deal of these I tend to keep up with but don't contribute very much because when people feel strongly, they are can be difficult to reason with (myself included). I still love this community because most of the time we have a lot of teamwork going on in arriving at helpful conclusions. I've learned a lot myself and hope I have helped some others along the way.

I think I can speak for all of us when I say that the only real time creativity is bad, we unanimously agree that time is when somebody's creativity is ruining the game for everyone else.

Pex

2022-07-03, 09:09 AM

I have a hunch the OP has been trying to find groups to join online, and everyone is saying they want "roleplayers not rollplayers" or words to that effect. If he does manage to get into a group it's all snowflake dramatic roleplay and hardly ever a combat to utilize his character's game mechanics.

I've seen the former often. There's always a snark against power gamers or minmaxers and overly stress the importance roleplay. Roleplaying is part of the fun, but I won't apologize putting a 16 in my prime, 14 in CON, and have 18 AC at first level if proficient when other players have 10 CO, 14 in their prime, and only 15 AC despite proficiency. I don't apologize for knowing how to do stuff with my action, move, and bonus action efficiently. I don't apologize for knowing and using the rules. My roleplay comes with play. I put effort into it, but I don't apologize for also caring about the game mechanics.

Bardbarian91

2022-07-03, 09:39 AM

animorte

2022-07-03, 09:45 AM

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{scrubbed}

Bardbarian91

2022-07-03, 09:52 AM

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{scrubbed}

MrStabby

2022-07-03, 09:58 AM

{scrub the post, scrub the quote} I suspect the "creative" aspect mentioned might be like my first game as a DM, where the monk thought with the slippers of spider climbing he asked to start the game with when I let everyone have a magic item for flavor, and he decided to run along the ceiling of every dungeon they walked into and use the full length of his quarterstaff to bonk skeletons on the head from a safe distance.

{scrubbed}

That said, I do think there is a case to be made for 5th edition not supporting mechanical creativity. I don't think I have seen any suggestion of any build that would qualify as "creative" since the coffeelock. So many things just seem to be "hey! Look! Bonus A can stack with bonus B and when we have both at the same time the thing we do with both of them is actually quite good!".

The possible exception is illusions where you can use knowledge of your target to get creative about selecting the best illusion for their way of thinking.

I think the way to do it is a bit of an excercise in constrained optimisation. Look at the rest of the party, work out where they are going to be the ones to shine (and hence where you should be weak) and where you can shine without stepping onthe toes of anyone else or having your playstyle stop them from doing their cool thing.

H_H_F_F

2022-07-03, 10:10 AM

That said, I do think there is a case to be made for 5th edition not supporting mechanical creativity. I don't think I have seen any suggestion of any build that would qualify as "creative" since the coffeelock. So many things just seem to be "hey! Look! Bonus A can stack with bonus B and when we have both at the same time the thing we do with both of them is actually quite good!".Very succinctly saying what I've been trying to say. Thank you.

I think the way to do it is a bit of an excercise in constrained optimisation. Look at the rest of the party, work out where they are going to be the ones to shine (and hence where you should be weak) and where you can shine without stepping onthe toes of anyone else or having your playstyle stop them from doing their cool thing.Always true, and always worth saying.

No brains

2022-07-03, 10:12 AM

Segev

2022-07-03, 10:17 AM

That possibility also occurred to me. I hope you don't mind, I fixed your example.

I mean, Star Trek is objectively better! :smallwink:

Speaking as a power gamer who plays like a puzzle solver and favors "out of the box" solutions, "creativity" could mean "coming up with solutions that bypass the challenge in a way that seems too easy, like walking around a maze or breaking down the walls rather than going through it."

As for a monk walking on the ceiling, that's what ranged, flying, and tall enemies are for.

Boci

2022-07-03, 10:22 AM

[color="blue"]As for a monk walking on the ceiling, that's what ranged, flying, and tall enemies are for.

Also quarterstaff isn't a reached weapon, so by RAW they'd never be able to attack safely unless the creature had a reach of 0.

MrStabby

2022-07-03, 10:25 AM

The only viable argument against powergaming is DMs admitting they don't want to balance against it. I've been guilty of it. Call it a personal admission of ineptitude in the system, veiled cowardice towards balancing encounters, an unwillingness to foster ill will from players, but it's always the fault of DMs who can't hack it. That's not to say they should hack it though: preventing ill-will from players is more important than running a high-power game. Maybe they don't want ill will from the power player who they may feel the need to strike down or maybe they don't want to victimize the rest of the party when they design an encounter that can compete with an optimized character while flagrantly smoking a casual.

Whilst I agree with some of what you say, I think the problem with optimisation isnt the DM but the other players.

As A DM it is rivial to scale things up or dawn depending on the optimisation level of the pary, to add magic items to enemy NPCs etc., to add some reinforcements or whatever. That's easy.

The problem is if I am a player and I rock up with a character that is expected to have strengths in a particualr area but isn't overly optimised. If someone brings a totally optimised character to the party then either I have to break out of my concept and optimise as well or have less fun because someone brought something that diminishes my concept. This isn't that the other player did anything wrong, just that there is an incompatability between the way different types of people want to play, but to me the challenge isn't accomodating the DM but rather accomodating the other players.

I think it fair to say that I have had more fun sucked out of games by other players trying to be strong than I have by the most controlling or restrictive DM.

I mean optimisation has its place, I used to be focussed on it myself, but finding ways for as many people to have as much fun as possible tends to bring better games.

Segev

2022-07-03, 10:35 AM

The only times I have noticed optimizing removing the fun of other players (and I have been on both sides of this) is when the solution the optimized player presents makes the more fun solution the other player(s) want to try that showcase their abilities a foolish risk and needless time commitment.

At that point, we have to step back and examine what kind of game everyone wants to play.

Sindal

2022-07-03, 10:41 AM

Too little context given

Unable to form thoughtful response

rel

2022-07-03, 10:43 AM

I have no idea where else to go from here.

Give 3.5 or Pathfinder a go. Almost everyone I know still playing those are doing it for the character creation minigame.

No brains

2022-07-03, 11:10 AM

Whilst I agree with some of what you say, I think the problem with optimisation isnt the DM but the other players.

As A DM it is rivial to scale things up or dawn depending on the optimisation level of the pary, to add magic items to enemy NPCs etc., to add some reinforcements or whatever. That's easy.

The problem is if I am a player and I rock up with a character that is expected to have strengths in a particualr area but isn't overly optimised. If someone brings a totally optimised character to the party then either I have to break out of my concept and optimise as well or have less fun because someone brought something that diminishes my concept. This isn't that the other player did anything wrong, just that there is an incompatability between the way different types of people want to play, but to me the challenge isn't accomodating the DM but rather accomodating the other players.

I think it fair to say that I have had more fun sucked out of games by other players trying to be strong than I have by the most controlling or restrictive DM.

I mean optimisation has its place, I used to be focussed on it myself, but finding ways for as many people to have as much fun as possible tends to bring better games.

I'll admit it is a challenge for a DM to make a fun encounter for a party whose composition includes "You*" and "I'm you but stronger", but it's a challenge that can be faced.

*not you as in the reader. Please excuse the irresponsibly vague use of English for the joke's sake.

Part of it is a weakness in how skill challenges are treated. Typically, having one 'the lockpick guy' is as much as a party ever needs. There aren't guides on how to accommodate the redundancy in the DMG. It takes some out-of-the-box thought to make them useful and sometimes out-of-the-box thinking doesn't stand up to the 'is it actually fun' test. Still, DMs trying something can at least be novel.

Splitting the party can help with this a bit, but that has the inherent problem of being a pain in the butt. Objectives that need to be handled simultaneously are neat, but hard to run smoothly. Even so, giving two locks that need to be picked at the same time justifies two lockpickers even of disparate skill. Imagine having the chance to pick locks around an enemy's location and cut off their escape with synched maneuvers.

Another way to tackle this is to play not to the overwhelming strengths, but to the 'ribbon' level weaknesses. It's rare to have carbon copies of characters with exactly the same capabilities, so lean into the little differences when you can. Include a chariot race to justify that land vehicle proficiency. Make a literal poison drinking contest to let poison resistance shine. Use animals in Flintstone-esque technologies to make Handle Animal less of a dead skill. Reward a character for their cute hobby rather than their studied area of expertise.

The most dramatic and draconian way to deal with a redundancy in the party is to exercise lethality. If one person in a redundant role is dead, the party will feel lucky they brought a spare. Often this favors the optimizer who tried harder to survive, but sometimes a vengeful enemy will bring their own overkill to the overkiller and it is the meek who will inherit the party role. When the optimizer survives, there's a lot of roleplay drama that can be milked from the idea of one whose quest for power brought more danger instead of less. Either balrog-ize Gandalfs or Lurz-inate Boromirs as you feel the players can handle it. The Aragorns will prosper.

The point is, when the DM can make the whole town, it's the DM's fault when two players are in a town that's not big enough for the two of them. If we're going to bemoan the power of power gamers, we ought to remember who had the real power all along. But as we've agreed, sometimes the real power was the friends we made along the way, including the DM. I wish I could go on more articulate rants about how I'm grateful for DMs putting in the effort on a hard job even when it isn't perfect.

MrStabby

2022-07-03, 11:35 AM

I'll admit it is a challenge for a DM to make a fun encounter for a party whose composition includes "You*" and "I'm you but stronger", but it's a challenge that can be faced.

*not you as in the reader. Please excuse the irresponsibly vague use of English for the joke's sake.

Part of it is a weakness in how skill challenges are treated. Typically, having one 'the lockpick guy' is as much as a party ever needs. There aren't guides on how to accommodate the redundancy in the DMG. It takes some out-of-the-box thought to make them useful and sometimes out-of-the-box thinking doesn't stand up to the 'is it actually fun' test. Still, DMs trying something can at least be novel.

Splitting the party can help with this a bit, but that has the inherent problem of being a pain in the butt. Objectives that need to be handled simultaneously are neat, but hard to run smoothly. Even so, giving two locks that need to be picked at the same time justifies two lockpickers even of disparate skill. Imagine having the chance to pick locks around an enemy's location and cut off their escape with synched maneuvers.

Another way to tackle this is to play not to the overwhelming strengths, but to the 'ribbon' level weaknesses. It's rare to have carbon copies of characters with exactly the same capabilities, so lean into the little differences when you can. Include a chariot race to justify that land vehicle proficiency. Make a literal poison drinking contest to let poison resistance shine. Use animals in Flintstone-esque technologies to make Handle Animal less of a dead skill. Reward a character for their cute hobby rather than their studied area of expertise.

The most dramatic and draconian way to deal with a redundancy in the party is to exercise lethality. If one person in a redundant role is dead, the party will feel lucky they brought a spare. Often this favors the optimizer who tried harder to survive, but sometimes a vengeful enemy will bring their own overkill to the overkiller and it is the meek who will inherit the party role. When the optimizer survives, there's a lot of roleplay drama that can be milked from the idea of one whose quest for power brought more danger instead of less. Either balrog-ize Gandalfs or Lurz-inate Boromirs as you feel the players can handle it. The Aragorns will prosper.

The point is, when the DM can make the whole town, it's the DM's fault when two players are in a town that's not big enough for the two of them. If we're going to bemoan the power of power gamers, we ought to remember who had the real power all along. But as we've agreed, sometimes the real power was the friends we made along the way, including the DM. I wish I could go on more articulate rants about how I'm grateful for DMs putting in the effort on a hard job even when it isn't perfect.

Oh yeah, my comment was in no way an attempt to be critical of DMs. I know how hard it is to pull a campaign together.

Yeah some things like splitting the party can help (but also add clarity when That One Player isn't around you have more fun).

I mean it's fine to be an optimiser. It's fine to not want to play with optimisers. It's just different styles... not even discrete styles.

animorte

2022-07-03, 11:36 AM

I think the way to do it is a bit of an excercise in constrained optimisation. Look at the rest of the party, work out where they are going to be the ones to shine (and hence where you should be weak) and where you can shine without stepping onthe toes of anyone else or having your playstyle stop them from doing their cool thing.
I try to do this a lot, actually most of the time. I make tons of characters and when I look at the party I can pretty much choose from something I already have prepared that fits in with everybody else in this manner. This is really enjoyable for me.

Another way to tackle this is to play not to the overwhelming strengths, but to the 'ribbon' level weaknesses. It's rare to have carbon copies of characters with exactly the same capabilities, so lean into the little differences when you can. Make a literal poison drinking contest to let poison resistance shine.
Completely agree. Also some Princess Bride scenery happening. Love it.

But as we've agreed, sometimes the real power was the friends we made along the way, including the DM. I wish I could go on more articulate rants about how I'm grateful for DMs putting in the effort on a hard job even when it isn't perfect.
I really think more people should be reminded. Add that to your sig.

Thrudd

2022-07-03, 11:40 AM

I think the overall design of 5e indicates that the intention was for creativity to emerge largely in the act of playing and interacting with the challenges presented by the DM, rather than in the act of mechanical character optimization. It may or may not be totally successful at this, but it is certainly started out with the intention of reducing the complexity that the 3.5 chargen had developed. That's what most people around here think of when someone says "anti-power gaming", they think you mean anti-charop, although maybe that isn't what the OP was talking about? it's hard to tell.

Or is the OP talking about actually using spells/abilities in-game in a way that isn't obvious or suggested by the rules, which their DM keeps shooting down because the rules don't say that it can be used that way? And it is "power gaming", because they are trying to defeat creatures and problems using effects that need special DM ruling, rather than just doing HP damage and assigning the mechanical effects described by the rules? Like, you want to use a rock moving spell to cause a cave in and do tons of rock falling damage to the bad guys. The DM says "no, the spell can only move rocks, it can't make the ceiling cave in".

I can see this as a potentially valid complaint, not of the D&D community overall but for specific tables- particularly if a DM universally shoots down all attempts to do anything not specifically mentioned in the rules. 5e has rules only for very broad categories of interactions on purpose - that is so each DM can allow almost anything they want. Yes, this can cause a number of problems. But if a DM isn't allowing or even considering anything outside the text of the book, I'd say they are not playing RAI.

KorvinStarmast

2022-07-03, 11:50 AM

There is no "D&D community". Have you noticed that the OP never came back to discuss this? Might have been a vent/rant and nothing more.

And to whoever and whatever inspired this OP... who hurt you? They need to find new friends. (I recently left a group where the pace of play was excruciatingly slow, but it was also "one group too many and not enough good sessions to keep playing" - but you know what I didn't do? I didn't write a rant on a forum about it).

Th thing that bugs me is that some people see powergaming and roleplaying as mutually exclusive when the factually work really well together. Yes indeed.

The only viable argument against powergaming is DMs admitting they don't want to balance against it. I've been guilty of it. Difficulty is dialable in D&D 5e.

Too little context given

Unable to form thoughtful response Perhaps one wasn't desired. It feels to me like a rant.

False God

2022-07-03, 11:52 AM

Try an RP-heavy system where the numbers don't matter and the points are all made up.

Yes, I know you're upset with the rejection of optimization, and I'm not dog-piling on you with the suggestion. IMO: one reason I've always power-built is for freedom and options. I dislike being constrained to a limited part of the game or my overall participation in play being restricted because this stat is too low or I don't have a class feature that allows me to do XYZ. What I've found as I've moved away from D&D is that more RP-heavy systems don't do this. How you go about something matters more than if your stat is high enough. You're rarely shut out of any part of the game and if you are, it's more than likely due to a string of bad rolls than any error in the design of your character.

Quite frankly, I really want to play "TV D&D". Where there are no stats, no sheets, and only one die rolled by the DM. You describe your character, you're expected to play true to it, and you describe what you want to do to the DM who rolls the die and determines if you succeed or not.

Bardbarian91

2022-07-03, 12:15 PM

Th thing that bugs me is that some people see powergaming and roleplaying as mutually exclusive when the factually work really well together. There are so many good dramatic hooks that can be pulled from a powergaming perspective. Are you a lancer who needs to perform well to find value when you can't trust that your friends will find you worth keeping? Better optimize into majin Vegeta.

Are you a traumatized horror protagonist who does not want to narrowly survive against a monster who leveled your life? Better optimize into Resident Evil 4 Leon, Aliens Ripley, Dream Warriors Nancy, uh... probably the lady from Halloween as well... I didn't see those movies.

And for all the killer DMs who like drama better than agency: Are you an arrogantly detached intellectual in your pie in the blue skying ivory tower questioning a god you see as within some plus/minus value of your own lofty heights? Do you need to be taught a lesson as to why the natural world is why the way it is and you shouldn't question it? Better optimize into any Faustian story, any other (hopefully entertaining) morality play character, or even literary foundations like Hercules or Gilgamesh.

The pursuit of power, especially how it relates to security and personal worth, is exactly the kind of drama D&D is built to explore. There are a lot of compelling ways to handle the theme within the system. People have known how to handle powergaming characters in stories longer than they have known how to put those stories to written word and have been using them all the way into stories transcending the written word to film.

The only viable argument against powergaming is DMs admitting they don't want to balance against it. I've been guilty of it. Call it a personal admission of ineptitude in the system, veiled cowardice towards balancing encounters, an unwillingness to foster ill will from players, but it's always the fault of DMs who can't hack it. That's not to say they should hack it though: preventing ill-will from players is more important than running a high-power game. Maybe they don't want ill will from the power player who they may feel the need to strike down or maybe they don't want to victimize the rest of the party when they design an encounter that can compete with an optimized character while flagrantly smoking a casual.

So while I do absolve power gamers of most of the tedious OOC drama, I do think there is sometimes grace in them stepping back and playing at a handicap for DMs who can't handle it. If you can play the game more often, that may be more fun than playing the game as hard as you possibly. can. The truest power is knowing when not to exercise power. Go all void ring on dem clowns.

Well, most of the issue I see in this is you have a session 0 to lay out characters, everyone is apparently on the same page and then you end up with one person who ends up neglecting all chararacter elements in favor of "...and because I took this, my attack crits on 18, plus with all the spells I buffed with that comes out to...198 damage. Oh! Plus 2 for profiency, even 200." *Quietly pulls the single hobgoblin off the table*
While there's nothing wrong with optimizing, it does make it hard to balance when you have four people, one playing a support AoE, one playing a barbarian, one playing a melee focus Cleric, and then some munchkin who finagled a ridiculous to hit and Bonus damage so they're stabbing for more damage than the barbarian and never getting hit. It's an exaggeration, but it's the extremes that cause problems, anyway, not the moderate.

I mean, Star Trek is objectively better! :smallwink:

Speaking as a power gamer who plays like a puzzle solver and favors "out of the box" solutions, "creativity" could mean "coming up with solutions that bypass the challenge in a way that seems too easy, like walking around a maze or breaking down the walls rather than going through it."

As for a monk walking on the ceiling, that's what ranged, flying, and tall enemies are for.

Well, that sounds fine, but when I told him I was going to be making the ceilings in the dungeons just a little taller so he wouldn't take it badly mid session and understand why I was doing it, his reaction was, literally, "I guess I'll just sell them then," referring to the slippers. This person also likes jokes and rolling slight of hand to prank or steal potions from the party "I was gonna give them back anyway", and every time a merchant had some kind of ring or something he'd refuse to buy it unless the merchant told him what it does or wore it themselves. He never wanted to be pranked, EVER, one time I even managed a small joke and he didn't seem amused at all, and got to be even more of a stickler about not wearing it unless he knew exactly what it does.

Dimers

2022-07-03, 12:50 PM

Have you noticed that the OP never came back to discuss this? Might have been a vent/rant and nothing more.

While "might have been" is a reasonable statement, "never came back to discuss this" is pretty cold, given that it's been less than 11 hours since the original post went up. Speaking for myself, sometimes things like sleep and paid work get in the way of posting. (Sometimes.)

animorte

2022-07-03, 12:52 PM

Speaking for myself, sometimes things like sleep and paid work get in the way of posting. (Sometimes.)
Such a shame isn’t it. We need to sort out our priorities. Just like when people have an excuse for not showing up to D&D, I question their life decisions.

Sigreid

2022-07-03, 03:32 PM

Segev

2022-07-03, 03:51 PM

Well, that sounds fine, but when I told him I was going to be making the ceilings in the dungeons just a little taller so he wouldn't take it badly mid session and understand why I was doing it, his reaction was, literally, "I guess I'll just sell them then," referring to the slippers. This person also likes jokes and rolling slight of hand to prank or steal potions from the party "I was gonna give them back anyway", and every time a merchant had some kind of ring or something he'd refuse to buy it unless the merchant told him what it does or wore it themselves. He never wanted to be pranked, EVER, one time I even managed a small joke and he didn't seem amused at all, and got to be even more of a stickler about not wearing it unless he knew exactly what it does.

"You wouldn't tolerate your own potions being stolen, even as a prank, so no, you may not do it to the other PCs."

Other than that, if it's not interfering with other players' fun, let him get away with putting things over on NPCs. Let him feel clever for avoiding the pitfalls. And, if his caution is too great, so much so that it costs him opportunities, make sure that he gets the privilege of seeing other PCs benefitting from their risks.

Maybe a prankster pranks the party, and those who fell for it in ways that amused him got Charms or Boons. Perhaps Charms or Boons that remind them of how they were pranked, but still are useful.

Maybe the "beard growth potion" prank won the elf who amused the prankster a Charm that lets him cast an oddly-high-strength mage hand at will, but he gets it from growing a bears that extends into prehensile hair that ends in a big hairy hand. He can retract it to being clean-shaven as an action.

MrStabby

2022-07-03, 03:52 PM

ftafp

2022-07-03, 03:55 PM

Okay, im conscious again. i still have a lot of posts to catch up on but I want to address this specifically

I would have said the total opposite. That power-gaming is the opposite of playing creatively, since at this point, power-gaming simply involves reading one or more Guides that someone else wrote. And anyone who has read the same Guides you have, knows exactly what you're doing. Oh cool...You're using Tasha's Humanoid to get Darkvision and a Feat...I wonder if it's Crossbow Expert...OMG IT IS! At Level 4, you're gonna get Sharpshooter...OMG you're doing it. Wow. Very cool.

One of the problems with the 5e community's handling of "power gaming" is that there isn't one form of power gaming but 4 and people in the community only seem willing to tolerate one specific form, lumping all the other kinds together as toxic gameplay behavior

Optimizing: This is the most basic form of "power gaming". almost everyone does it to an extent and it takes very little effort, though it offers very little room for creativity. This is dipping artificer 1 on a wizard, or taking sharpshooter/crossbow expert on a fighter. of the 4 types, when people claim to be okay with power gaming they're often exclusively referring to this
Exploiting: A slightly more complex form, exploiting is exploratory and revolves around finding new synergies, rules interactions and applications for spells that are allowed within the rules. This offers even greater advantages than optimizing, but it doesn't break or trivialize the game. an example might be mixing tiny servant and magic stone to increase a wizard's offensive prowess on the turns it uses cantrips, or using phantasmal force to blind an enemy. Despite largely being harmless, many DMs consider this the "wrong" way to play, and will shut down any attempts to play this way
Cheesing: Here is where we start getting disruptive. Cheesing refers to tricks that are fully RAW, but are so absurdly unbalancing that they can't be permitted outside of thought exercises and high-level one-shots. Examples include simulacrum chains, coffeelocking, or using conjure animals with tashas's falling rules to do 80d6 bludgeoning damage in a single turn. this form of optimization is only speculative, but many players and DMs adamantly refuse to understand that even if it is explained to them, and will heap abuse on anyone who so much as mentions this
Cheating: This refers to tricks that flat out ignore both RAW and RAI and break gameplay on top of that, often selectively treating dnd like a physics engine. This is where peasant railguns fit in, or casting mage hand inside the ogre's skull to squeeze his brain. All other forms of powergaming often get lumped in with this, contributing to extreme stigma against powergamers

these four forms of power-gaming are not the same, and the fact they are treated as if they are is the thing that makes me unbearably frustrated with the 5e community's culture

Dalinar

2022-07-03, 04:00 PM

I'll bet the OP just needs to find a group that he jells with and avoid D&D related social media. My observation is that social media that isn't directly limited to people you actually know and care about rarely if ever brings you any happiness and often makes you frustrated and angry.

This is why I don't really do socials these days. Occasionally I'll check a subreddit for a topic I'm interested in just to see if anything interesting has happened lately, but that's like it.

Having given it more thought, I am curious where exactly OP is finding this hivemind of virulently anti-powergaming sentiment, because I never see it in the places I go--which is admittedly, like, here and my group, but still. Usually I see the very extremes mocked into the distance and everyone else just sorta tries to meet in the middle somewhere--especially in 5e, where there are relatively few abusable things until you start getting to high enough levels for things like Simulacrum.

That said, given a choice between either extreme, at least munchkinry can be a fun thought exercise and/or challenge for a table that wants to play that way. I don't really see where people get joy from playing something like an 8-INT Wizard. Heck, I played a Sun Soul in T1 one time and it felt so bad that I never returned to the character (granted part of that was the fault of another player being toxic towards said character), and that was with good starting stats too.

If you are that person that likes to give yourself a handicap in what is fundamentally a team game, I'm curious to hear you out. (EDIT: general 'you' not any particular person)

EDIT:

One of the problems with the 5e community's handling of "power gaming" is that there isn't one form of power gaming but 4 and people in the community only seem willing to tolerate one specific form, lumping all the other kinds together as toxic gameplay behavior

Optimizing: This is the most basic form of "power gaming". almost everyone does it to an extent and it takes very little effort, though it offers very little room for creativity. This is dipping artificer 1 on a wizard, or taking sharpshooter/crossbow expert on a fighter. of the 4 types, when people claim to be okay with power gaming they're often exclusively referring to this
Exploiting: A slightly more complex form, exploiting is exploratory and revolves around finding new synergies, rules interactions and applications for spells that are allowed within the rules. This offers even greater advantages than optimizing, but it doesn't break or trivialize the game. an example might be mixing tiny servant and magic stone to increase a wizard's offensive prowess on the turns it uses cantrips, or using phantasmal force to blind an enemy. Despite largely being harmless, many DMs consider this the "wrong" way to play, and will shut down any attempts to play this way
Cheesing: Here is where we start getting disruptive. Cheesing refers to tricks that are fully RAW, but are so absurdly unbalancing that they can't be permitted outside of thought exercises and high-level one-shots. Examples include simulacrum chains, coffeelocking, or using conjure animals with tashas's falling rules to do 80d6 bludgeoning damage in a single turn. this form of optimization is only speculative, but many players and DMs adamantly refuse to understand that even if it is explained to them, and will heap abuse on anyone who so much as mentions this
Cheating: This refers to tricks that flat out ignore both RAW and RAI and break gameplay on top of that, often selectively treating dnd like a physics engine. This is where peasant railguns fit in, or casting mage hand inside the ogre's skull to squeeze his brain. All other forms of powergaming often get lumped in with this, contributing to extreme stigma against powergamers

these four forms of power-gaming are not the same, and the fact they are treated as if they are is the thing that makes me unbearably frustrated with the 5e community's culture

Ah, welcome back.

I would argue that in this post specifically you're describing more of a continuum of "this is just the basics on how to play good" to "ooh that's a neat and effective trick" to "wait I don't think that actually works." Dividing things up into discrete tiers is a great way to cause arguments about what behaviors belong where, IMO. I could easily posit that depending on the DM something like a coffeelock could be fine, provided everyone is on the same page, knows how it works, and importantly either doesn't mind a power disparity or otherwise has their own ways of dealing with the challenges presented by the DM.

Segev

2022-07-03, 04:05 PM

Okay, im conscious again. i still have a lot of posts to catch up on but I want to address this specifically

One of the problems with the 5e community's handling of "power gaming" is that there isn't one form of power gaming but 4 and people in the community only seem willing to tolerate one specific form, lumping all the other kinds together as toxic gameplay behavior

Optimizing: This is the most basic form of "power gaming". almost everyone does it to an extent and it takes very little effort, though it offers very little room for creativity. This is dipping artificer 1 on a wizard, or taking sharpshooter/crossbow expert on a fighter. of the 4 types, when people claim to be okay with power gaming they're often exclusively referring to this
Exploiting: A slightly more complex form, exploiting is exploratory and revolves around finding new synergies, rules interactions and applications for spells that are allowed within the rules. This offers even greater advantages than optimizing, but it doesn't break or trivialize the game. an example might be mixing tiny servant and magic stone to increase a wizard's offensive prowess on the turns it uses cantrips, or using phantasmal force to blind an enemy. Despite largely being harmless, many DMs consider this the "wrong" way to play, and will shut down any attempts to play this way
Cheesing: Here is where we start getting disruptive. Cheesing refers to tricks that are fully RAW, but are so absurdly unbalancing that they can't be permitted outside of thought exercises and high-level one-shots. Examples include simulacrum chains, coffeelocking, or using conjure animals with tashas's falling rules to do 80d6 bludgeoning damage in a single turn. this form of optimization is only speculative, but many players and DMs adamantly refuse to understand that even if it is explained to them, and will heap abuse on anyone who so much as mentions this
Cheating: This refers to tricks that flat out ignore both RAW and RAI and break gameplay on top of that, often selectively treating dnd like a physics engine. This is where peasant railguns fit in, or casting mage hand inside the ogre's skull to squeeze his brain. All other forms of powergaming often get lumped in with this, contributing to extreme stigma against powergamers

these four forms of power-gaming are not the same, and the fact they are treated as if they are is the thing that makes me unbearably frustrated with the 5e community's culture
Good analysis, but I wish to point out that the boundaries are likely debatable. For instance, I wouldn't consider "coffeelocking" to be "disruptive." Again, faced with non-white-room play, I suspect (though I know nobody who's tried to play it in a real game) that it would hit all sorts of boundaries and problems that render it far less of a problem than the white room makes it out to be.

Most examples of "cheesing" tend to be highly theoretical simply because they don't work very well in real games. I have seen the lift-and-drop used, however, and it is very effective. Especially if you happen to be fighting vegetable-people near a lava pit. Even so, there are ways around it. The DM may have to be more willing to play ruthlessly than I am, though, to be able to sic a big damage burst on the concentrating druid.

Really, I think, "combat as war" vs. "combat as sport" comes into play a lot over whether cheesing works or not. It tends to be more fiat-forbidden in "as sport," but more practical there, too, if not forbidden, while "as war" tends to see it be highly effective when the party can properly set up for it, but run into all sorts of logistical problems when the DM is playing "as war" right back at them via his NPCs and the verisimilitude of the world. As a DM, I think one of my weaknesses is that I feel bad if I try to hold the party too strictly to the allegedly-minor bookkeeping side of things, such as tracking supplies and dealing with the hazards of the environment (particularly when resting). I always feel like I'm being unfair if I don't let hte players just hand-wave their explanations or let them get their rests and supplies. It's one reason I vastly prefer to have rules - at least as guidelines - for what is considered "normal" in terms of this stuff. And 5e is just a little too fuzzy on how easy/hard foraging is, and frankly I should be harsher on preservation of supplies.

Sigreid

2022-07-03, 04:09 PM

This is why I don't really do socials these days. Occasionally I'll check a subreddit for a topic I'm interested in just to see if anything interesting has happened lately, but that's like it.

Having given it more thought, I am curious where exactly OP is finding this hivemind of virulently anti-powergaming sentiment, because I never see it in the places I go--which is admittedly, like, here and my group, but still. Usually I see the very extremes mocked into the distance and everyone else just sorta tries to meet in the middle somewhere--especially in 5e, where there are relatively few abusable things until you start getting to high enough levels for things like Simulacrum.

That said, given a choice between either extreme, at least munchkinry can be a fun thought exercise and/or challenge for a table that wants to play that way. I don't really see where people get joy from playing something like an 8-INT Wizard. Heck, I played a Sun Soul in T1 one time and it felt so bad that I never returned to the character (granted part of that was the fault of another player being toxic towards said character), and that was with good starting stats too.

If you are that person that likes to give yourself a handicap in what is fundamentally a team game, I'm curious to hear you out.

Well, even here there's regular threads about how x class (usually wizard) has too much flexibility/too many spells/isn't thematic because it has too many spells and it's bad for story telling, etc.

Dalinar

2022-07-03, 04:15 PM

Well, even here there's regular threads about how x class (usually wizard) has too much flexibility/too many spells/isn't thematic because it has too many spells and it's bad for story telling, etc.

I think that's more about game design whereas OP's complaint is about community behavior. There's definitely some design consideration to be made about having a small spell list (and feeling forced to pick the handful with the most utility e.g. Fireball, Counterspell, Fly) versus having a big one (and feeling like you can just casually solve any problem as long as you've got the slots).

KorvinStarmast

2022-07-03, 04:32 PM

Bardbarian91

2022-07-03, 04:32 PM

"You wouldn't tolerate your own potions being stolen, even as a prank, so no, you may not do it to the other PCs."

Other than that, if it's not interfering with other players' fun, let him get away with putting things over on NPCs. Let him feel clever for avoiding the pitfalls. And, if his caution is too great, so much so that it costs him opportunities, make sure that he gets the privilege of seeing other PCs benefitting from their risks.

Maybe a prankster pranks the party, and those who fell for it in ways that amused him got Charms or Boons. Perhaps Charms or Boons that remind them of how they were pranked, but still are useful.

Maybe the "beard growth potion" prank won the elf who amused the prankster a Charm that lets him cast an oddly-high-strength mage hand at will, but he gets it from growing a bears that extends into prehensile hair that ends in a big hairy hand. He can retract it to being clean-shaven as an action.

Well, the rogue in question was deeply aggravated that his freshly bought potions were pickpocketted by the Monk, who I have no intention of playing with anymore, but honestly due to a long list of issues with this only being the most relevant. I don't want to clog up the thread with a rant though I might post a slightly more in depth explanation of the long slow death that was my first attempt at DMing as a separate thread just to get other people's thoughts. I've mostly moved past it since I've found a better group and come to understand my own limitations as a DM a bit better and learns how to deal with things. But suffice to say for now he was a bit of a munchkin.

Okay, im conscious again. i still have a lot of posts to catch up on but I want to address this specifically

One of the problems with the 5e community's handling of "power gaming" is that there isn't one form of power gaming but 4 and people in the community only seem willing to tolerate one specific form, lumping all the other kinds together as toxic gameplay behavior

Optimizing: This is the most basic form of "power gaming". almost everyone does it to an extent and it takes very little effort, though it offers very little room for creativity. This is dipping artificer 1 on a wizard, or taking sharpshooter/crossbow expert on a fighter. of the 4 types, when people claim to be okay with power gaming they're often exclusively referring to this
Exploiting: A slightly more complex form, exploiting is exploratory and revolves around finding new synergies, rules interactions and applications for spells that are allowed within the rules. This offers even greater advantages than optimizing, but it doesn't break or trivialize the game. an example might be mixing tiny servant and magic stone to increase a wizard's offensive prowess on the turns it uses cantrips, or using phantasmal force to blind an enemy. Despite largely being harmless, many DMs consider this the "wrong" way to play, and will shut down any attempts to play this way
Cheesing: Here is where we start getting disruptive. Cheesing refers to tricks that are fully RAW, but are so absurdly unbalancing that they can't be permitted outside of thought exercises and high-level one-shots. Examples include simulacrum chains, coffeelocking, or using conjure animals with tashas's falling rules to do 80d6 bludgeoning damage in a single turn. this form of optimization is only speculative, but many players and DMs adamantly refuse to understand that even if it is explained to them, and will heap abuse on anyone who so much as mentions this
Cheating: This refers to tricks that flat out ignore both RAW and RAI and break gameplay on top of that, often selectively treating dnd like a physics engine. This is where peasant railguns fit in, or casting mage hand inside the ogre's skull to squeeze his brain. All other forms of powergaming often get lumped in with this, contributing to extreme stigma against powergamers

these four forms of power-gaming are not the same, and the fact they are treated as if they are is the thing that makes me unbearably frustrated with the 5e community's culture

This I actually like and is a more detailed analysis of my own two categories. I classified the first two groups as power gamers and find them completely acceptable. The latter half, however, I typically refer to as munchkins and have no interest in it, since they tend to be character traits indicative (at least in my experience) of unpleasant players, if they do all of that regularly and attempt to do so regularly. While members of my primary campaign groups can and have straddled the line, they also know where the line is and don't get upset when asked to tone things down a bit.

Rynjin

2022-07-03, 05:08 PM

A Tiefling that is adopted by Dwarves, IMO, roleplays differently to a Dwarf born to Dwarves. Hell (pun unitended), why was the Tiefling adopted in the first place could have significant ramifications on roleplaying.

Could do, could not.

Circumstances.

If you are going to force the Human and Dwarf to have identical personalities and character traits, that's on you.

I think you misunderstand my point a little. I'll say this straight up: I think the idea of a RACE having locked in personality traits is indicative of poor roleplaying.

Racial features are a good crutch for new players, but some people rely on that crutch for too long, and it stifles their creativity. And for some reason they use that relative blindness to tag other people with a label that more clearly applies to themselves.

When you boil it down what, really, is an elf at the end of the day? Is any race?

A person. Circumstances? They're mutable, different for every person. "Circumstances" don't force every dwarf to be a vaguely Scottish miner who loves beer and digging. Bad writers do.

So outside of the mechanics, there's no real "meat" to latch onto in terms of forming your character beyond the stereotypes.

Mechanically, elves are extremely long-lived and don't sleep. These both provide interesting roleplaying opportunities in and of themselves.

Culturally, elves are tree-hugging hippies who sneer at the lesser races.

So functionally, what makes them different from a holier-than-thou, somewhat racist Human hippy?

Not much, in the grand scheme.

ftafp

2022-07-03, 05:20 PM

Good analysis, but I wish to point out that the boundaries are likely debatable. For instance, I wouldn't consider "coffeelocking" to be "disruptive." Again, faced with non-white-room play, I suspect (though I know nobody who's tried to play it in a real game) that it would hit all sorts of boundaries and problems that render it far less of a problem than the white room makes it out to be.

I agree that coffeelocking isn't anywhere near as disruptive as people think it is, particularly in more modern games that only have 1-2 encounters per day. the problem is that stigma against coffeelocking specifically is so vehement and disproportionate that I didn't want to lump it in with exploits because I knew It would only bite me in the ass

Sigreid

2022-07-03, 05:31 PM

Could do, could not.

I think you misunderstand my point a little. I'll say this straight up: I think the idea of a RACE having locked in personality traits is indicative of poor roleplaying.

Racial features are a good crutch for new players, but some people rely on that crutch for too long, and it stifles their creativity. And for some reason they use that relative blindness to tag other people with a label that more clearly applies to themselves.

When you boil it down what, really, is an elf at the end of the day? Is any race?

A person. Circumstances? They're mutable, different for every person. "Circumstances" don't force every dwarf to be a vaguely Scottish miner who loves beer and digging. Bad writers do.

So outside of the mechanics, there's no real "meat" to latch onto in terms of forming your character beyond the stereotypes.

Mechanically, elves are extremely long-lived and don't sleep. These both provide interesting roleplaying opportunities in and of themselves.

Culturally, elves are tree-hugging hippies who sneer at the lesser races.

So functionally, what makes them different from a holier-than-thou, somewhat racist Human hippy?

Not much, in the grand scheme.

Counterpoint: races (species) being provably created by actual gods in their image that have direct ongoing interactions with their people through priests that are verifiably in contact with their progenitor deities; combined with longer lives and thus more exposure to previous generations could very easily create a significant commonality in a people.

Boci

2022-07-03, 05:36 PM

Counterpoint: races (species) being provably created by actual gods in their image that have direct ongoing interactions with their people through priests that are verifiably in contact with their progenitor deities; combined with longer lives and thus more exposure to previous generations could very easily create a significant commonality in a people.

But that's world building stuff, not character building stuff. World building deals with population as a whole, or at least in significant chunks, but character creation deals with a specific individual. So unless its "No elf ever is X,", its of limited relevance for a single character that, "The majority of elves are not X,"

Sigreid

2022-07-03, 05:40 PM

But that's world building stuff, not character building stuff. World building deals with population as a whole, or at least in significant chunks, but character creation deals with a specific individual. So unless its "No elf ever is X,", its of limited relevance for a single character that, "The majority of elves are not X,"

I think the key point where we disagree (and it's fine we do, I doubt we'll ever be at the same table anyway) is that I think there are logical metaphysical reasons for members of a fantasy race to not range too widely off how they were created. In my view, part of the reason dwarves are the way they are, for example; is that their god carved the first of them from stone and breathed life into them and that stone is still part of who they are.

Boci

2022-07-03, 05:42 PM

I think the key point where we disagree (and it's fine we do, I doubt we'll ever be at the same table anyway) is that I think there are logical metaphysical reasons for members of a fantasy race to not range too widely off how they were created. In my view, part of the reason dwarves are the way they are, for example; is that their god carved the first of them from stone and breathed life into them and that stone is still part of who they are.

For player character? You think DMs should say, "Nope, not dwarfish enough, Moradin would never let that happen, either make it more dwarfy or change the race," - ?

Ionathus

2022-07-03, 05:44 PM

I legitimately cannot see where you're coming from, OP. Maybe I've just been lucky to not be on the receiving end of this perceived anti-powergaming mentality, but practically every thread, chat, or online discussion of 5e rules and optimization I've seen has been a blend of perspectives, with precious few people "shouting down" the powergamers (and often, just as many shouting down the anti-powergamers). I know what it's like to get dogpiled in an online discussion and it can feel quite alienating and exclusionary, but I don't think the sentiment is actually as aggressive and all-encompassing as you perceive it to be.

As others have said, "The D&D 5e community" is simply not a unified thing that exists. It's not a monolith. If you don't like the dynamic where you are, there are certainly other online communities even within 5e that share your perspective. I'm not sure if this still holds true, but r/dndnext vs. r/dnd are two radically different subreddits, both mostly focused on 5e, but r/dndnext has a much more powergaming mindset in my experience. I would've also referred you to this forum but, well, you're already here.

And of course, this is all secondary to the actual experience of actually playing the game. Not that online discussion is bad, but it's not actually the core of the hobby. Find a group that likes to play the way you play - I guarantee you they are everywhere - and play. Everything seems harsher, more judgmental, and nitpickier on the internet. Plus online discussion lacks substance, because it's not actually the thing itself; it's just discussion of the thing, and that's going to inherently be less grounded and often a less fulfilling experience...especially if you disagree with your discussion partners.

Pex

2022-07-03, 06:04 PM

Mastikator

2022-07-03, 06:04 PM

Racial features are a good crutch for new players, but some people rely on that crutch for too long, and it stifles their creativity. And for some reason they use that relative blindness to tag other people with a label that more clearly applies to themselves.

When you boil it down what, really, is an elf at the end of the day? Is any race?

Hard disagree. Infusing the culture of the race into your character grounds the character and makes them a part of the setting. By removing all cultural context you're just throwing it into a vacuum and are only stifling your own ability to roleplay within the confines of the actual game. Roleplaying isn't a solo act, it's collaborative with the other players and the DM. By infusing the cultural context into your character you're telling the other players your character isn't just Bob the horned red human fighter human, you're bob the tiefling of Baldur's Gate. Bob who has to deal with prejudice because, yeah the people of Baldur's Gate are racist.

There is a difference between playing a human with pointy ears vs playing an elf. Including elf stuff into your elf character and letting his elfyness color his traits is not using elfness as a crutch.

I've seen this happen so many times, people ignoring their racial culture and the other players constantly asking "hey what race are you again". If people forget that you're playing an orc then you're not playing an orc, you're playing a human with orc stats.

Sigreid

2022-07-03, 06:05 PM

For player character? You think DMs should say, "Nope, not dwarfish enough, Moradin would never let that happen, either make it more dwarfy or change the race," - ?
I believe a DM has the right to say that a character doesnt fit dwarves in the campaign and work with a player to either get the character to fit the race or find a race that fits, yes. I'll be honest, your outlook to me just seems like humans cosplaying as other races in the D&D campaign without taking into account what it means to be x race in the setting.

Jophiel

2022-07-03, 06:08 PM

Boci

2022-07-03, 06:22 PM

I believe a DM has the right to say that a character doesnt fit dwarves in the campaign and work with a player to either get the character to fit the race or find a race that fits, yes. I'll be honest, your outlook to me just seems like humans cosplaying as other races in the D&D campaign without taking into account what it means to be x race in the setting.

I doubt you'd say that if you actually played in one of my games. I have cultures, I just don't insist on them being monolithic to the point that a single individual not following becomes problematic.

For example my current favorite setting of mine I use, being an elf or a human. If you are from Sultir, that a fairly cosmopolitan kingdom, and you're likely to consider yourself Sultir, rather than an elf or human. By contrast, Fexen is a predominately elven empire (with a very strong culture). Fexen elves are going to call themselves Fexen, but they will definitely (subconsciously or otherwise) conflate being Fexen with being elves, even though Fexen is the largest but by no means the only elven population in the land. Human living in the Fexen dominion would likely have mix healing of being Fexen, because their would always be a likely unspoken belief that since they're not elves they can't be Fexen, they're just permitted to live there.

Panjur, another predominately elven populated citystate, by contrast would consider themselves Panjurian, and not conflate this with being elven, because they are the city of temples, so being religious is the focus of their identity, and most of the, fairly numerous, temples in the city do not have a racial focus. Unlike the Fexen, to the Panjurians being elven is incidental. They are a predominately elven city state, but that's not a central focus of their identity.

But that's just in general terms. You can have a Sultirian grow being fanatically elven, Fexen or otherwise, and you can have a Fexen who is thoroughly unimpressed with their nation's culture and interpretation on being an elf entails.

Sigreid

2022-07-03, 06:38 PM

I doubt you'd say that if you actually played in one of my games. I have cultures, I just don't insist on them being monolithic to the point that a single individual not following becomes problematic.

For example my current favorite setting of mine I use, being an elf or a human. If you are from Sultir, that a fairly cosmopolitan kingdom, and you're likely to consider yourself Sultir, rather than an elf or human. By contrast, Fexen is a predominately elven empire (with a very strong culture). Fexen elves are going to call themselves Fexen, but they will definitely (subconsciously or otherwise) conflate being Fexen with being elves, even though Fexen is the largest but by no means the only elven population in the land. Human living in the Fexen dominion would likely have mix healing of being Fexen, because their would always be a likely unspoken belief that since they're not elves they can't be Fexen, they're just permitted to live there.

Panjur, another predominately elven populated citystate, by contrast would consider themselves Panjurian, and not conflate this with being elven, because they are the city of temples, so being religious is the focus of their identity, and most of the, fairly numerous, temples in the city do not have a racial focus. Unlike the Fexen, to the Panjurians being elven is incidental. They are a predominately elven city state, but that's not a central focus of their identity.

But that's just in general terms. You can have a Sultirian grow being fanatically elven, Fexen or otherwise, and you can have a Fexen who is thoroughly unimpressed with their nation's culture and interpretation on being an elf entails.

What you are describing sounds to me like elves are just humans with pointy ears and long lifespans. It's fine that you and your group find that to be what you want, but it makes having different fantasy races unappealing to me.

Boci

2022-07-03, 06:45 PM

What you are describing sounds to me like elves are just humans with pointy ears and long lifespans. It's fine that you and your group find that to be what you want, but it makes having different fantasy races unappealing to me.

That's fair, not everyone has to like my setting, and I don't mind playing in other settings. I dislike the idea only humans are allowed to be multicultural, that all other races get one culture and stick to it down to every last individual, but its not a deal breaker. I have played in such games and enjoyed them.

However, I will ask you this, because I rarely get a good answer to it:

What is a good way to portray elves in a way that makes them not be humans with pointy ears?

I ask because I'm often told the (singular) elven kingdom is alien and exotic, but when I ask why I'm told, "Its the elven kingdom" as if that answers it and it doesn't.

Rynjin

2022-07-03, 06:49 PM

I find it to be a bell curve. On one end is static "This is a dwarf so he drinks ale and makes armor and hates elves." On the other hand is trope-subversion in lieu of interesting creativity: "I made a super-strong kobold barbarian and a clumsy dumb elf and a beautiful dwarf ballerina!" where the subversion is the most interesting thing about them.

I'm most impressed by people who can make a dwarven blacksmith with enough tweak to make the character interesting and feel unique without having to rely on cranking the "Not Your Father's [Race]" dial up to eleven.

Pretty much. I've made a few dwarf characters. One was for a pretty notorious meatgrinder campaign (Slumbering Tsar). The only thing I wrote on his sheet in the "personality" section was "Brock is a dwarf." Everyone knew what I meant. It worked well enough until he died. Or the campaign ended early, I can't remember which.

The character I had more fun with was a dwarven gladiator in a much later campaign. He was a bit closer to an inversion of stereotypes (not much respect for tradition, for example) but mostly fit in; had a strong sense of duty and honor, loved to fight, was uncomfortable in open spaces, etc.

I don't see as many characters like that. It is, as you say, one extreme or another with some people.

Hard disagree. Infusing the culture of the race into your character grounds the character and makes them a part of the setting. By removing all cultural context you're just throwing it into a vacuum and are only stifling your own ability to roleplay within the confines of the actual game. Roleplaying isn't a solo act, it's collaborative with the other players and the DM. By infusing the cultural context into your character you're telling the other players your character isn't just Bob the horned red human fighter human, you're bob the tiefling of Baldur's Gate. Bob who has to deal with prejudice because, yeah the people of Baldur's Gate are racist.

There is a difference between playing a human with pointy ears vs playing an elf. Including elf stuff into your elf character and letting his elfyness color his traits is not using elfness as a crutch.

I've seen this happen so many times, people ignoring their racial culture and the other players constantly asking "hey what race are you again". If people forget that you're playing an orc then you're not playing an orc, you're playing a human with orc stats.

I find the idea of "racial culture" a bit silly and cringey, if I'm being honest. It's way more "problematic" of an idea than many others people like to pretend are an issue.

It's not the case in the real world, so why would it be in fantasy? You take a white guy who lives in Chicago and transplant him to Boston, or Tampa, or anywhere else in the US that's far enough away from his own culture and there's going to be a bit of culture shock. And that's just different CITIES in the same country, much less traveling abroad.

Why are dwarves, elves, etc. supposed to be a monolith worldwide?

Mastikator

2022-07-03, 07:23 PM

Why are dwarves, elves, etc. supposed to be a monolith worldwide? Because the campaign setting said so, and you chose to play in that campaign setting. And if the campaign setting gives many different cultures for dwarves in different regions, including cosmopolitan cultures where race actually becomes a non-starter, then choose some of that.
But don't ignore what the setting says about dwarves just because you think dwarves having culture is cringy.

As for the real world stuff, I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole :smallamused:

Boci

2022-07-03, 07:31 PM

Because the campaign setting said so, and you chose to play in that campaign setting.

Which campaign setting? You're talking about a dwafen PC needing to be dwarven. There is no official campaign that prohibits that on an individual basis. Now sure, the DM could invent such a setting, but that is not official lore in any form.

And if the campaign setting gives many different cultures for dwarves in different regions, including cosmopolitan cultures where race actually becomes a non-starter, then choose some of that.

D&D hasn't always done the best at distinguishing culture from genetics for racial traints, but there is enough that having races be cosmopolitan doesn't need to mean they're a non-starter. You can still have racial traits in setting with cosmopolitan cultures.

ncluding elf stuff into your elf character and letting his elfyness color his traits is not using elfness as a crutch.

I hear this a lot, but very rarely do I hear specific examples. What is a way of letting elfyness colour your elf character? I have a friend who likes to describe their eyes shinning like cats do in light. Is that an example?

As for the real world stuff, I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole :smallamused:

You already did earlier in this thread. You called not having racism in a game "I think turning a blind eye to realities". Good to hear you appear to be rethinking that stance.

Keltest

2022-07-03, 07:41 PM

I hear this a lot, but very rarely do I hear specific examples. What is a way of letting elfyness colour your elf character? I have a friend who likes to describe their eyes shinning like cats do in light. Is that an example?

Well, for example, an elf might put little value on the lives of humans, even an otherwise good aligned elf. From the elf's perspective, the humans will be gone before you can even really get to know them or do anything meaningful with them anyway, what are a few years either way? They may or may not be overly malicious or callous about it, but to the elf, the human is only going to live with them for the length of like a pet mouse or hamster.

Boci

2022-07-03, 07:47 PM

Well, for example, an elf might put little value on the lives of humans, even an otherwise good aligned elf. From the elf's perspective, the humans will be gone before you can even really get to know them or do anything meaningful with them anyway, what are a few years either way?

So, most importantly, sure, might. As in won't 100% of the time. I have repeatedly made the point of a difference between world building race lore and individual character building race lore, and have been told that no, it also applies to individual characters too, so any option with "might" doesn't apply, since then it also might not.

And also, we're back to racism, and the emotional kind too. And yes, not valuing another race's life because they have a shorter life span is racism (or specimen if you want to split hairs). Do we have any other way to meaningfully explore the difference in races?

Rynjin

2022-07-03, 07:54 PM

Because the campaign setting said so, and you chose to play in that campaign setting...But don't ignore what the setting says about dwarves just because you think dwarves having culture is cringy.

You assume much, but let's say I did. Why wouldn't I change it because said campaign setting was clearly written by hacks?

Keltest

2022-07-03, 07:56 PM

So, most importantly, sure, might. As in won't 100% of the time. I have repeatedly made the point of a difference between world building race lore and individual character building race lore, and have been told that no, it also applies to individual characters too, so any option with "might" doesn't apply, since then it also might not.

And also, we're back to racism, and the emotional kind too. And yes, not valuing another race's life because they have a shorter life span is racism (or specimen if you want to split hairs). Do we have any other way to meaningfully explore the difference in races?

Its not racism to acknowledge that you live 5-10 times as long as another species, and measure your perspective accordingly. An elf will treat a historical event differently than a human because theres a good chance that elf lived through it, whereas the human had to hear about it from his grandfather. And elf will have a different perspective on the passage of time, among other things, and these will color aspects of their personality differently than a human's perspective would.

Boci

2022-07-03, 08:01 PM

Its not racism to acknowledge that you live 5-10 times as long as another species, and measure your perspective accordingly.

No, but claiming that makes your life worth more than theirs is racist.

An elf will treat a historical event differently than a human because theres a good chance that elf lived through it whereas the human had to hear about it from his grandfather.

Depends. Historically yes, elves were traditionally started at about 100, though I was changing that back in 3.5, and now 5th ed has officially done so, clarifying that the 100 year adult is a social thing and elves are expected to their adventuring before then, which means most elven player character won't be significantly older than their human counter parts.

And elf will have a different perspective on the passage of time, among other things, and these will color aspects of their personality differently than a human's perspective would.

This is more valid, but also incredibly. How exactly do you see this aspect of a character coming up in roleplay so that it doesn't sound shoehorned?

Sigreid

2022-07-03, 08:12 PM

That's fair, not everyone has to like my setting, and I don't mind playing in other settings. I dislike the idea only humans are allowed to be multicultural, that all other races get one culture and stick to it down to every last individual, but its not a deal breaker. I have played in such games and enjoyed them.

However, I will ask you this, because I rarely get a good answer to it:

What is a good way to portray elves in a way that makes them not be humans with pointy ears?

I ask because I'm often told the (singular) elven kingdom is alien and exotic, but when I ask why I'm told, "Its the elven kingdom" as if that answers it and it doesn't.

I'll start by saying that they don't have to be monocultural, but if other races don't process information and emotions in a fundamentally different way than humans, I think you're better off just making them all humans and attaching the racial features to their cultures.

For elves not just being humans with pointy ears, I'd want them to lean into being far more concerned with the actual long term welfare of the world. Not because they're pointy ear'd hippies, but because each elf knows that unlike most of the other races they're chained to this world. Not only do they have much longer lifespans, but each and every elf experiences first hand every day that there is no heaven or hell for them. No eternal reward. They have personal knowledge that they've lived hundreds or perhaps thousands of lives. All of them here. It's possible that they know that an elven soul lost, consumed by dark magic, is a loss to the entire race that can never be replaced. So, one example is that their thinking, planning and goals will most often be very long term. Not out of a desire for legacy. Their legacy is in their daily meditations. Being tied to the feywild and having seen so much over so many lifetimes, they have an innate understanding of the need for change and disorder. Growth comes from chaos, not order. I think it would be cool and fitting if they could develop a lucid dreaming type skill where they learn to guild their meditations on their past lives to look for information in them. This is probably an underused DM tool. An elf isn't an individual. He's the latest in a long line of individuals with the same soul and he knows it.

False God

2022-07-03, 08:16 PM

To respond to the current discussion and circle back to the OP, the last page worth of comments is one of the reasons I personally have drifted away from D&D as a game, and the D&D community.

There are far too many people, I find, who value only a One True Way of playing what is essentially, to reference another thread, a kitchen sink of Fantasy gaming. Sure, you can select out certain dishware for any given game, make it more open or less open, but I too often feel that D&D is tied to extremely dull and tired tropes of fantasy. I rarely encounter games where people have made any modification to the default race-tropes, much less gotten creative and presented something new and refreshing.

Too often D&D Table A is nearly identical to D&D Table B.

And too often DM's will not tolerate deviation. Want to make an elf who was raised by dwarves? Nope sorry can't happen no exceptions end of story. Want to make a dwarf who prefers to work with wood instead of stone or metal? Nope can't happen sorry no exceptions end of story.

My favorite campaigns are ones where the DM's allowed me to get creative with my characters. To be the dwarf that doesn't dwarf. To be the elf who hates elves (and themselves) but still basically acts like a snotty arrogant tree-hugger. To make something more than "That short guy with the beard and alcoholism with a hammer."

Boci

2022-07-03, 08:23 PM

I'll start by saying that they don't have to be monocultural, but if other races don't process information and emotions in a fundamentally different way than humans, I think you're better off just making them all humans and attaching the racial features to their cultures.

For elves not just being humans with pointy ears, I'd want them to lean into being far more concerned with the actual long term welfare of the world. Not because they're pointy ear'd hippies, but because each elf knows that unlike most of the other races they're chained to this world. Not only do they have much longer lifespans, but each and every elf experiences first hand every day that there is no heaven or hell for them. No eternal reward. They have personal knowledge that they've lived hundreds or perhaps thousands of lives. All of them here. It's possible that they know that an elven soul lost, consumed by dark magic, is a loss to the entire race that can never be replaced. So, one example is that their thinking, planning and goals will most often be very long term. Not out of a desire for legacy. Their legacy is in their daily meditations. Being tied to the feywild and having seen so much over so many lifetimes, they have an innate understanding of the need for change and disorder. Growth comes from chaos, not order. I think it would be cool and fitting if they could develop a lucid dreaming type skill where they learn to guild their meditations on their past lives to look for information in them. This is probably an underused DM tool. An elf isn't an individual. He's the latest in a long line of individuals with the same soul and he knows it.

Okay, that's interesting, I have a couple of problems with this approach:

1. Drow elves exists. They clearly aren't concerned with longterm welfare. Are you changing drow culture to accommodate this? What about wood or high elves? You mentions elves, are you removing subraces entirely?

2. What about all the other races? Are they going to be humans cosplaying? Because it seems unlikely you could come up with some entire rework way they process information for hafling, orcs, dwarves, gnomes, dragonborn, tabaxi, shifters, kobolds, goblins, tritons, those bird people, tieflings, firbolg, genasi, gith, ect ect. Sure you'll be able to come up with a few more, but one for everyone? Doubtful. And then you're left human, elves and the special other few races you manage to make a coherent psychology for, and then every other race, which by your metric is now just a human cosplaying.

Sigreid

2022-07-03, 08:32 PM

Okay, that's interesting, I have a couple of problems with this approach:

1. Drow elves exists. They clearly aren't concerned with longterm welfare. Are you changing drow culture to accommodate this? What about wood or high elves? You mentions elves, are you removing subraces entirely?

2. What about all the other races? Are they going to be humans cosplaying? Because it seems unlikely you could come up with some entire rework way they process information for hafling, orcs, dwarves, gnomes, dragonborn, tabaxi, shifters, kobolds, goblins, tritons, those bird people, tieflings, firbolg, genasi, gith, ect ect. Sure you'll be able to come up with a few more, but one for everyone? Doubtful. And then you're left human, elves and the special other few races you manage to make a coherent psychology for, and then every other race, which by your metric is now just a human cosplaying.

1. Drow elves are fallen elves. Even elves can fall and it's been in the lore for ages. Other subraces have taken that over all trait and adapted it to their areas. It's not meant for elves to be entirely monolithic, but they are alien from a human perspective.
2. For the other races, the coherent psychology has been there for a long, long time at this point and has only recently started to go away as people for some reason that escapes me draw parallels to various real world groups of people.
3. Interestingly, Tieflings don't actually require any such adjustments as they are "tainted" members of another race.

Also, to address another comment I saw. An elf raised in a dwarven village/city/town could be a lot of fun for a player to explore how what an elf is interacts with the dwarven culture he was raised in during this life. How he honors his dwarven culture in his elven way.

Boci

2022-07-03, 08:38 PM

1. Drow elves are fallen elves. Even elves can fall and it's been in the lore for ages. Other subraces have taken that over all trait and adapted it to their areas. It's not meant for elves to be entirely monolithic, but they are alien from a human perspective.

But drow aren't alien from human perspectives. They're selfish, evil bastard with an superiority complex. That is not alien, we have humans like that.

2. For the other races, the coherent psychology has been there for a long, long time at this point

Not in the way you're describing. Sure, goblins and dwarves have their culture, but not strong enough to stop an individual goblin and human from sharing opinions and mindset that are largely indistinguishable from a human's mindset. You're free to ignore this, but at that point you're no longer following the official game lore. This isn't a 5th ed only thing, back in 3.5 "Always evil" was clarified to not mean "always evil" and racial psychology was full of "tends to" instead of absolutes.

Rynjin

2022-07-03, 08:52 PM

How he honors his dwarven culture in his elven way.

I just question why he'd do so "in his elven way"? He wasn't raised by elves. He has no direct experience with elven culture.

This is the issue I'm talking about, treating cultural features as though they're innate, genetic qualities.

That is a big part of the cringe I'm referring to. Would you discuss a human IRL in such terms? I imagine not.

Sigreid

2022-07-03, 08:53 PM

But drow aren't alien from human perspectives. They're selfish, evil bastard with an superiority complex. That is not alien, we have humans like that.

I'm sorry if I implied that elves couldn't be selfish or evil, but even in that they'd think about it differently.

Yeah there's been a long slow change going on in the lore. Heck, orcs no longer have boar heads.

Dalinar

2022-07-03, 08:55 PM

Boci

2022-07-03, 09:07 PM

I'm sorry if I implied that elves couldn't be selfish or evil, but even in that they'd think about it differently.

Yeah this is where it starts to break down. You have a well illustrated setting lore about why elves would be different to human because they reincarnate and have a link to their past lives, that sounds interesting to explore. But you're unable to replicate this for other races making elves stand out, and when you talk about how elves can still be selfish or evil, you're only able to offer "they'd think about it differently", which is just insufficient for something you're expected to roleplay. It can work for Elder Gods and the like, "you feel an intense hatred, intensely alien in its manifestation," but no ones really rolepalying them, even the GM is largely just referencing their impossible nature. When I'm playing an evil elf, and the GM tells me to make sure I roleplay them differently to an evil human, there's really not much I can do there.

Jophiel

2022-07-03, 09:37 PM

Why are dwarves, elves, etc. supposed to be a monolith worldwide?
Even in stock settings, this usually doesn't seem to be the case. You've got your haughty high elves in their ivory cities, your wood elves in their Ewok tree cities, your semi-feral wild elves, your dark elves, your sea elves, etc. Same with mountain dwarves and hill dwarves and deep dwarves and whatever other flavor of dwarf you've got.

Granted, when you're getting into webbed toes and gills, you're on a "new" race but the difference between high/wood or mountain/hill is basically real estate. And it's pretty rare (in my experience) to have campaigns on a global scale so there could be mountain dwarves with different ways of life on the other side of the planet but you'll likely never go there anyway. The "main" continent of Ansalon in Krynn, for instance, is less than half the size of Australia but has multiple versions of humans/elves/dwarves. And that's major subdivisions, not just "Those guys over yonder put nutspice in their ale! What a bunch of weirdos; everyone knows you should use dried moss for that!" if you wanted to use a more Chicago vs Boston example.

I keep coming back to this thread hoping to compare my experiences about the treatment of optimization as a subject with other peoples' experiences, especially considering OP has had a radically worse experience on that front than I have.
I've played in games where there was a definite friction between the more optimizing types and more casual players but it was more about the optimizing types exerting control. You know, the "Well, if you took THIS feat next level then..." or "When we're in combat, you should really do A so when I do B..." sort of thing. And while I definitely agree with not telling people how to play their characters, I also know how annoying it is to land a perfect Hypnotic Pattern then the druid says "I cast Ice Storm because it'll be cool!".

What I haven't really run into was people being actively hostile towards more optimized players just for their basic character chassis or for playing a standard human paladin with standard human paladin tools and goals.

The group I play in now has a couple of guys who are pretty heavily into optimizing, both on the character sheet then wanting to scout locations, plan out where they should be when the fight starts and what the overall plan should be, etc. But they're also the first to go into in-character speech when we meet an NPC or work towards character-driven goals. And, luckily, the other players (myself included) are "serious" enough that we get along fine and no one feels like someone is mucking up the combat works.

So, yeah, seems like most of this is really about finding the right table for your style of play.

Keltest

2022-07-03, 09:43 PM

Yeah this is where it starts to break down. You have a well illustrated setting lore about why elves would be different to human because they reincarnate and have a link to their past lives, that sounds interesting to explore. But you're unable to replicate this for other races making elves stand out, and when you talk about how elves can still be selfish or evil, you're only able to offer "they'd think about it differently", which is just insufficient for something you're expected to roleplay. It can work for Elder Gods and the like, "you feel an intense hatred, intensely alien in its manifestation," but no ones really rolepalying them, even the GM is largely just referencing their impossible nature. When I'm playing an evil elf, and the GM tells me to make sure I roleplay them differently to an evil human, there's really not much I can do there.

If youre an orc, and possibly a half-orc, youre filled with a supernatural rage that no amount of discipline can entirely quench, because Grummsh made you that way. If youre a dwarf, youre instinctively attracted to shiny things and precious metals like a magpie and have a hoarding instinct like dragons do. If youre a Tabaxi, you have supernatural ADHD and literally cannot stay focused on a task in the long term without growing extremely agitated. Are you a Kobold? Then you reflexively respond to authority and physical power, and have to actively catch yourself to not just absent mindedly start following orders from people who have them, if you even care enough to stop. Heck, Dwarves have poison resistance, which means if they want to get drunk then all their alcoholic drinks need to be extra strong, and thusly extra flavorful to disguise the taste of the alcohol, even if they never met another dwarf in their life.

Its entirely possible to create a society where people have common traits that shape that society without forcing the species into it like a straightjacket. Orcs can practice restraint, dwarves dont have to like alcohol or be driven entirely by the acquisition of wealth, kobolds can be anarchists who never willingly bow to authority. Just put those traits in the context of the species, and you get a personality from it.

Boci

2022-07-03, 09:50 PM

If youre an orc, and possibly a half-orc, youre filled with a supernatural rage that no amount of discipline can entirely quench, because Grummsh made you that way. If youre a dwarf, youre instinctively attracted to shiny things and precious metals like a magpie and have a hoarding instinct like dragons do. If youre a Tabaxi, you have supernatural ADHD and literally cannot stay focused on a task in the long term without growing extremely agitated. Are you a Kobold? Then you reflexively respond to authority and physical power, and have to actively catch yourself to not just absent mindedly start following orders from people who have them, if you even care enough to stop. Heck, Dwarves have poison resistance, which means if they want to get drunk then all their alcoholic drinks need to be extra strong, and thusly extra flavorful to disguise the taste of the alcohol, even if they never met another dwarf in their life.

A lot of those are indistinguishable from humans. Multiple cultures valued gold because it was shiny and pretty, ADHD is a medical term for something humans have. You're not making the culture unique, you're just giving it a broad, general character (sometimes to the point of being a caraciture), that can overlap with a human, which multiple people in this thread keep insisting is bad roleplay. None of your offered explanation reach the level of "elves reincarnate and can visit past lives through trancing" that was initially an example of this. And even that if I'm being technical is still just a human concept applied to a race as a whole.

And tying it to their god, is...eh, sure you can, but its also emphasising the whole "every non-human race gets one major diety" aspect, which is a little uncreative. And why do they get to influence the whole race, even members who don't worship them anymore, potentially long ago as a community. A whole nation's worth could have found a new god generations ago, but nope, still influences them because gods work in mysterious ways.

Grod_The_Giant

2022-07-03, 09:52 PM

This anti-powergaming mentality that's taken root in the 5e community has become all-encompassing.
This isn't entirely wrong, I don't think--at least not on this forum. There are two contributors that I see.

Initially, a lot of 5e was designed to stand out from its crunchier predecessors in 3.5e, PF, and 4e. There was an concerted effort to brand it as being more focused on accessibility, roleplaying, and balance. They weren't going to make the same mistakes as they did before by churning out ever-more-powerful expansions. And so on, and so on-- the anti-powergaming mentality you're talking about has always been a part of this edition's DNA.

The reason that it still lingers, I think, is that 5e balance is honestly pretty damn tight. If you optimize, you can make a character who's... oh... call it 25% more effective than the "normal" build. And that's not ideal, especially if someone else in the party is trying to do a similar thing with less optimization, but... in 3.5e and PF, you could make a character who's 250% more effective than another, without even approaching cheese. (Heck, you can do it by accident-- look at a Druid and a Monk). The fact that you can notice the difference between a Fighter who took nothing but ASIs and a Fighter who took Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter is a testament to the game's design. But this is the internet--we're going to find something to argue about. The number of people interested in discussing mechanics and balance and all didn't change, and neither did the volume of our discourse, because none of that was really related to the rules in question. You wind up with the same amount of heat distributed over a much narrower range of possibilities, so the band of "acceptable" balance becomes very small.

and I have no idea where else to go from here.
The important thing to remember is that GitP isn't the only gaming community out there*, and 5e isn't the only roleplaying system. Heck, D&D isn't the only roleplaying system. There are all sorts of games out there, with all sorts of different philosophies. If 5e isn't a good fit, branch out! Try Shadowrun, or Fate, or Pathfinder, or a Chronicles of Darkness game, or Savage Worlds, or Mutants and Masterminds, or Exalted, or Ars Magicka, or.... you get the idea.

*Just the one with the best people :smallwink:.

Rynjin

2022-07-03, 09:54 PM

If you want to avoid stigmatization of optimizing, Exalted is an especially good fit. =p

(And you don't see too much of it in Pathfinder or Mutants and Masterminds circles either.)

Keltest

2022-07-03, 10:01 PM

A lot of those are indistinguishable from humans. Multiple cultures valued gold because it was shiny and pretty, ADHD is a medical term for something humans have. You're not making the culture unique, you're just giving it a broad, general character (sometimes to the point of being a caraciture), that can overlap with a human, which multiple people in this thread keep insisting is bad roleplay.

And tying it to their god, is...eh, sure you can, but its also emphasising the whole "every non-human race gets one major diety" aspect, which is a little uncreative. And why do they get to influence the whole race, even members who don't worship them anymore, potentially long ago as a community. A whole nation's worth could have found a new god generations ago, but nope, still influences them because gods work in mysterious ways.

I just went with the Forgotten Realms standard. That was all of 10 seconds of mental effort per race to make a point. If and when I create my own settings, I tend to put more thought into it. In my current setting for example, Orcs are intrinsically tied to the water and have never been able to settle colonies out of their native islands long term because the orcs just cant stand to live that far from it, as a group. Individuals can travel, but groups cant make colonies far from the coast because you just dont have enough of them who are willing to live there long enough to make it viable.

And I think youre misunderstanding what people are saying. Its literally impossible for a human to create an idea that is incomprehensible to humans, because definitionally if we created it then we comprehend it on some level. But a typical elf should be different from a typical human, or a typical dwarf or a typical orc. Halflings usually get a pass because, frankly, theyve never shaken Tolkien's legacy as a short, explicit analogue for rural English farmer types. Anyway, they dont have to all be wild and incomprehensible, they should just have natures that give context to their behavior and priorities so that even ones who behave like humans don't so do for quite the same reasons.

zzzzzzzz414

2022-07-03, 10:01 PM

Rynjin

2022-07-03, 10:05 PM

I just went with the Forgotten Realms standard.

This may be part of the disconnect between myself and others in this thread; I've always hated the Forgotten Realms as a setting. Even when my only exposure to D&D was through novels (which I did not know were D&D novels at the time), I thought other settings were better.

It's no wonder Drizzt was the big breakout star of the Icewind Dale trilogy, every other character was a bland caricature by comparison.

...Of course when they decided to give other characters more...character it ended up with them becoming unlikeable *cough*Wulfgar*cough*, so maybe that was for the best.

Boci

2022-07-03, 10:05 PM

And I think youre misunderstanding what people are saying.

I think you are. I agree its hard for humans to come up with inhumane stuff, which if why I don't recommend emphasising that aspect of non-human races. I have repeatedly offered that yes, the typically elf will be different to the typical human, but that won't necessary apply to a specific player character, since they are an individual. But nope I'm told, that's not good enough. I'm fine with you taking that stance if you want, but you do then have to stick with it.

Keltest

2022-07-03, 10:15 PM

I think you have. I agree its hard for humans to come up with inhumane stuff, which if why I don't recommend emphasising that aspect of non-human races. I have repeatedly offered that yes, the typically elf will be different to the typical human, but that won't necessary apply to a specific player character, since they are an individual. But nope I'm told, that's not good enough. I'm fine with you taking that stance if you want, but you do then have to stick with it.

Well yeah. If your race doesnt affect your character at all, youre playing a human in face paint. Even if your behavior is identical to a human's from an outsider's perspective, the why of your behavior should be different. An elf raised among dwarves might be miserly and have a taste for strong drink, but those traits would be instilled in them by the dwarves that raised them. They drink strong drink because its all they had, and they dont dislike alcohol enough to abstain entirely, as opposed to the dwarves who need it to be strong or its just crappy flavored water.

Boci

2022-07-03, 10:23 PM

Well yeah. If your race doesnt affect your character at all, youre playing a human in face paint. Even if your behavior is identical to a human's from an outsider's perspective, the why of your behavior should be different. An elf raised among dwarves might be miserly and have a taste for strong drink, but those traits would be instilled in them by the dwarves that raised them. They drink strong drink because its all they had, and they dont dislike alcohol enough to abstain entirely, as opposed to the dwarves who need it to be strong or its just crappy flavored water.

Sure, and it will effect your character. But maybe in ways that don't come up in the game. Not every group wants to hear why your elf prefer strong drink. Sometimes its jsut,

"Hi, I'm Malak. Despite my appearance, I was raised in a dwarven city,"
"Cool, nice to meet you Malak. Now lets go solve this mystery on the northern border,"

And then that's its. And that's a valid way to play too. Yes, obviously in a roleplay heavy game, such features will eventually come up. Can you quote anyone arguing otherwise? I don't think so. Its just a question of:

a. Is the group roleplay heavy enough for such details to emerge
b. Just how relevant is a detail like preferring strong drink relevant to your character compared with other aspects that might be independent from begin an elf raised by dwarves

Tawmis

2022-07-03, 10:31 PM

I just can't do this anymore. This anti-powergaming mentality that's taken root in the 5e community has become all-encompassing. DMs and players seem to have unanimously decided that playing creatively is somehow abusive and it's made me realize this game I grew up in just doesn't have a place for me anymore. I'm sick and tired of it, and I have no idea where else to go from here.

Just like everything - where you have a choice - you can make the experience be whatever you want it to be.
Looking for power gaming type players - search your local stores, search online, search Discord - plenty of places where you can find like minded souls.
There might even be some here.
Power gaming has never been a "fun" thing for me. I don't care for "optimizing my character to be the best there ever was, the best there ever will be."
But I see plenty of threads on here asking about optimizing characters.
If you post a thread about optimizing/max type characters - anyone who goes into it, should have the same like mind, and not go in there to argue "how dumb it is."
I see those threads, and I avoid them - because, like I said, not my cup of tea. I enjoy characters with faults, who might mess up, etc.
Hope you find whatever peace it is, where ever it is.

animorte

2022-07-03, 10:56 PM

If you post a thread about optimizing/max type characters - anyone who goes into it, should have the same like mind, and not go in there to argue "how dumb it is."
I see those threads, and I avoid them - because, like I said, not my cup of tea. I enjoy characters with faults, who might mess up, etc.
Hope you find whatever peace it is, where ever it is.

That's a good piece of advice. Try not taking part in certain discussion if your only real intent is to express the opposite of what the OP is asking for. I've kept up with a lot of threads, but don't feel the need to comment because a lot of people get lost in their circular disagreements, ultimately encountering no legitimate compromise or understanding.

That being said, I have caught myself taking part in conversations I couldn't really contribute to just because I overall thoroughly enjoy investing in the community. I have very few people to actively play D&D with, being my brother and my wife. We all have full-time jobs and kids so the time isn't really there either. I start feeling withdrawals and want to share with these folk. It helps most of the time.

Pex

2022-07-03, 11:38 PM

Am I the only one here who's a bit weirded out that two-thirds of this thread is a discussion on what qualifies as racism in a fantasy setting when that has very little to do with the subject actually at hand? I keep coming back to this thread hoping to compare my experiences about the treatment of optimization as a subject with other peoples' experiences, especially considering OP has had a radically worse experience on that front than I have.

I'm playing an aasimar (pre-multiverse) circle of stars druid. At the time I was 4th level, 18 WI. Action: Transform into angelic form. Move: Fly up 30 ft. Bonus Action: Go into Archer Constellation form and attack with its range spell attack hitting and doing 1d8 + 8 radiant damage. The other players freaked out wanting to know how I was able to do all that. I had to go step by step explaining how each ability worked. I knew how to spend my turn efficiently.

Roleplaying is roleplaying, but I purposely wanted to play an aasimar. In many past games I was in someone else was an aasimar and having fun with it. I wanted my turn in having fun with it. Multiverse book wasn't published yet. When it came out DM allowed me to stay in original form. When Circle of Stars druid was published I understood it to be the Blaster Druid. I agree it's a strong subclass, and I would say equal to Moon Druid. I had fun with it in the past in a one-shot playing the class like Aang with constellation form being the Avatar State. I wanted the fun of the class in a campaign. Combining both of my fun desires I saw the synergy of action economy.

I should not and do not have to apologize for wanting my own fun in the character I play. If someone wants to go against type and play a wizard with 10 IN that's their business. They're not a better player than be because they don't optimize going for more roleplay drama. I'm not saying I'm better than them. I can have all the roleplay drama I want and still play an optimized character. They'll make choices I wouldn't, but I'm not wrong to make the choices I do.

Dalinar

2022-07-04, 12:08 AM

I'm playing an aasimar (pre-multiverse) circle of stars druid. At the time I was 4th level, 18 WI. Action: Transform into angelic form. Move: Fly up 30 ft. Bonus Action: Go into Archer Constellation form and attack with its range spell attack hitting and doing 1d8 + 8 radiant damage. The other players freaked out wanting to know how I was able to do all that. I had to go step by step explaining how each ability worked. I knew how to spend my turn efficiently.

Roleplaying is roleplaying, but I purposely wanted to play an aasimar. In many past games I was in someone else was an aasimar and having fun with it. I wanted my turn in having fun with it. Multiverse book wasn't published yet. When it came out DM allowed me to stay in original form. When Circle of Stars druid was published I understood it to be the Blaster Druid. I agree it's a strong subclass, and I would say equal to Moon Druid. I had fun with it in the past in a one-shot playing the class like Aang with constellation form being the Avatar State. I wanted the fun of the class in a campaign. Combining both of my fun desires I saw the synergy of action economy.

I should not and do not have to apologize for wanting my own fun in the character I play. If someone wants to go against type and play a wizard with 10 IN that's their business. They're not a better player than be because they don't optimize going for more roleplay drama. I'm not saying I'm better than them. I can have all the roleplay drama I want and still play an optimized character. They'll make choices I wouldn't, but I'm not wrong to make the choices I do.

So let me see if I understand what you went through: you used an action and a bonus action in the same turn and *that's* what set off the table you were at? Were they mostly new players? Because on the one hand I get not understanding every class and race ability in the game, especially when you're early on. I definitely understand the urge to say "hey, can you actually do all that on the same turn?" Game's complicated.

But if they're complaining that having an action and a bonus action in the same round is not okay? I'm almost reminded of the classical scrub: the hypothetical Street Fighter player who insists that things like throws and fireballs are cheap or dishonorable in some way (with the heavy implication that it's because they don't understand how they fit into the game's design and so lose to them easily). When the game is actively designed with certain options in mind, throwing a fit when people use those options is... well, alien to me, anyway.

Anyway, sorry that happened to you. Yeesh. Neat character concept BTW.

Ionathus

2022-07-04, 12:19 AM

So let me see if I understand what you went through: you used an action and a bonus action in the same turn and *that's* what set off the table you were at? Were they mostly new players? Because on the one hand I get not understanding every class and race ability in the game, especially when you're early on. I definitely understand the urge to say "hey, can you actually do all that on the same turn?" Game's complicated.

But if they're complaining that having an action and a bonus action in the same round is not okay? I'm almost reminded of the classical scrub: the hypothetical Street Fighter player who insists that things like throws and fireballs are cheap or dishonorable in some way (with the heavy implication that it's because they don't understand how they fit into the game's design and so lose to them easily). When the game is actively designed with certain options in mind, throwing a fit when people use those options is... well, alien to me, anyway.

Anyway, sorry that happened to you. Yeesh. Neat character concept BTW.

My guess is the others at the table were just reacting to a lot of new stuff said in the span of a single turn. If none of them were familiar with the aasimar/circle of stars features (flying at level 4's not terribly common, for instance), I can certainly see them being overwhelmed and going "wait, hold on a minute, you can do all that in one turn?" Hell, I think I've said that line verbatim myself, though I always try to make sure it's with the tone of voice of "that's super cool, show me how!"

I don't see anything in Pex's post that indicates they were complaining or being mean-spirited -- just bewildered. When it comes to secondhand D&D stories, I always try to assume ignorance, not malice.

Gurgeh

2022-07-04, 01:56 AM

Echoing the above. I've had the exact same response (specifically, of the "wow, that's way cool! Druid is credit to team!" variety) from other players in my group as an Eladrin stars druid. With a bunch of "free" guiding bolts and not one but two powerful bonus action options (starry form and Fey Step), I'm frequently able to do two punchy, effective things every single round in some combats; contrast this with a low-level Fighter whose bonus action calculus is often "my HP is fine right now so Second Wind would be pointless, guess I'll just only do one thing this turn" and it can often feel like I'm hogging the limelight, even though I've had nothing but positive responses from my fellow players and the DM.

Pex

2022-07-04, 02:03 AM

My guess is the others at the table were just reacting to a lot of new stuff said in the span of a single turn. If none of them were familiar with the aasimar/circle of stars features (flying at level 4's not terribly common, for instance), I can certainly see them being overwhelmed and going "wait, hold on a minute, you can do all that in one turn?" Hell, I think I've said that line verbatim myself, though I always try to make sure it's with the tone of voice of "that's super cool, show me how!"

I don't see anything in Pex's post that indicates they were complaining or being mean-spirited -- just bewildered. When it comes to secondhand D&D stories, I always try to assume ignorance, not malice.

Yes this. They heard me say "transform" and "fly" and I was still able to attack the enemy doing some damage. I did multiple cool things in one turn. Occasionally I'll cast Faerie Fire and go into Dragon constellation to keep it up to help out the warrior players. I'll do Guiding Bolt or Produce Flame afterwards. When those enemies are gone and there are still more I cast Moonbeam. Meanwhile the cleric casts Spiritual Weapon then fires her crossbow. That's it. All she does. Every combat. No other spellcasting except for Cure Wounds when someone is injured. The level 4 fighter, when we reached 5th level, decided to take a level in bard because he wants some spellcasting. He wasn't wrong and is generous with his Bardic Inspiration, but I think taking 5th level fighter and getting the second attack was more important then take bard at 6th if you really want. I optimize and the players don't or more likely don't know how. When they see me doing all this stuff they go "Huh?".

The DM doesn't have an issue with this. The cleric has non-class stuff acquired in game play so she's not weak and is contributing, but I really do wish she'd cast spells other than Spiritual Weapon. Bless, Bane, Augury, something. It's a matter of experience I think. I know the game very well. Playing D&D since 2E with a Pathfinder hiatus during the 4E dark ages and 5E since publication. I have patience for new players learning the game, but I still do my thing and will always help a player if asked. I don't tell them what to do. I show them the options, and they decide.

Mastikator

2022-07-04, 02:35 AM

You assume much, but let's say I did. Why wouldn't I change it because said campaign setting was clearly written by hacks?

Yes I do assume much. But I think that what you think I assume and what I assume, if drawn out as a ven diagram would be two circles with zero overlap.

Here's what I'm not assuming: that you personally must adhere to the forgotten realms because you love the setting so much and what it has to say. So if it seems like I might be saying anything in that direction please consider that I am definitely not.

I personally really don't like Forgotten Realms, I think it's a bad setting. I really do like Eberron, I think it's a really good setting. In Eberron I can count at least eight elven cultures at the top of my head.
Valenar
Aerenal
Dragonmarked business
Khorvaire cosmopolitan
Scorrow
Sulatar
Umbragen

Depending on where your elf comes from you got 8 different options of cultures to infuse into your character. There's no elven monoculture, but there are distinct elven cultures. If you have this great catalog of cultures and you choose to ignore them then your elf character is in fact not an elf, it's a human with elf stats.

I am not saying you must adhere to Forgotten Realms the way it is written or you're a bad roleplayer. If you change the setting in some important way then kudos to you.
But I am saying that if you ignore the racial culture that your group has agreed to by using a setting then you've made a detached character, someone who doesn't belong in the world you're playing in. They exist only in a vacuum. I think well made characters can not exist independently of their setting- whatever setting you chose to play in, however you changed that setting. At least make the character from that changed setting. Don't use "I hate forgotten realms elven monoculture" as an excuse to ignore the whatever elven cultures you've chosen. And certainly don't not have elven cultures. Then they really would be humans with elven stat blocks. And if that was the case then you should not call them elves.

Waazraath

2022-07-04, 02:59 AM

I just can't do this anymore. This anti-powergaming mentality that's taken root in the 5e community has become all-encompassing. DMs and players seem to have unanimously decided that playing creatively is somehow abusive and it's made me realize this game I grew up in just doesn't have a place for me anymore. I'm sick and tired of it, and I have no idea where else to go from here.

Imo, the problem with 'playing creatively' is that it can mean a whole number of things, and that one person's creativity is another persons power gaming. Breaking it down a little bit:

1) you have 'creativity' in making a character (which can be a) in creating a cool backstory along different elements of race, class, background and maybe even equipment) or b) creating a powerful build;
2) you can be creative in play by looking for different and creative solutions story-wise (as in making different plans / try different approaches to a problem); this can be supported by mechanical options (pushing certain buttons, like ghost walk (phantom rogue) or x-ray vision (warlock) to gather information or scout), but this does not hav
3) you can be creative by combining mechanical options. Related to 1b, since you probably planned to do so, but not per se. Use interactions between different spells, feats, invocations or class features;
4) you can be creative in interpretations of rules (spells, feats, etc.)

I don't think anybody is ever bothered with 1a, and rarely with 2, that 1b and 3 will have quite different preferences among folks, and 4 is the most likely one to cause discussion.

The thing for the OP is, as some people already said, that as long as you can find a table with folks who look at these more or less the same way as you do, you should be fine.

Rynjin

2022-07-04, 04:47 AM

But I am saying that if you ignore the racial culture that your group has agreed to by using a setting then you've made a detached character, someone who doesn't belong in the world you're playing in. They exist only in a vacuum. I think well made characters can not exist independently of their setting- whatever setting you chose to play in, however you changed that setting. At least make the character from that changed setting. Don't use "I hate forgotten realms elven monoculture" as an excuse to ignore the whatever elven cultures you've chosen. And certainly don't not have elven cultures. Then they really would be humans with elven stat blocks. And if that was the case then you should not call them elves.

I have always abided by the principle of "player characters are exceptional". They may be exceptional in one or many circumstances, but by their very nature they stand out.

Certainly, one could expect a character to exhibit some of the markings of their culture. I am most familiar with Golarion (Pathfinder's setting), so an example using that context.

Say your player is a Half-Orc from the realm of Ustalav. There are many assumptions I COULD make about that character based on the average beliefs and attitude of an Ustalavan.

-They are the product of sexual assault.
-They have experienced prejudice due to their blood (Ustalav is in a constant war with the Hold of Belkzen, a nation of orcs).
-They worship Pharasma (the goddess of death and birth) and/or Gorum (the god of battle, commonly worshipped by orcs and warriors of all stripes)
-They have a deep hatred for the undead (Ustalav is also plagued by the remnants of a legendary lich's army, and so hate undead even more than the average nation; also Pharasma is in part defined by her "kill on sight, no exceptions" policy for undead)
-They might be predisposed toward the class of Barbarian

And so the core of a character is born. A Half-Orc with a chip on their shoulder, a problem with their temper expressed through class (Barbarian), and who worships Gorum and seeks glorious battle and bloodshed. This is a perfectly fine character.

And so is a Half-Orc Paladin of Shelyn (goddess of art, beauty) that seeks to protect the beauty of things and people who have been rejected as "ugly" by society...like themselves.

Or an Orc Bloodline Sorcerer (or Bloodrager!) that embraces the savagery inherent in their bloodline and turns their bloodlust to constructive ends as a wandering monster exterminator.

And a devout Pharasmin Cleric who, following the tragedy of their birth (which took their mother's life), devoted their life to midwifery and healing.

All of these characters are great. None are "Humans with Half-Orc statblocks" despite the fact that several of these concepts work perfectly well as humans...or any other race.

Because race is not the be-all, end-all definer of a character. Nor should it be. That idea, again, shows a distinct lack of creativity. Race is a single facet of a character. CULTURE is a single facet of a character, because not even every person who is "of a culture" is part of a boring monolith of identical blank NPCs.

Players should feel free to use as much, or as little, of their race of home culture to define themselves as possible. Because race is, by far, the single least important thing about a character in terms of making them a character.

And I will express, again, that I find it disturbing that this is a controversial statement. I'm certainly reading too deeply into it; it surely indicates more of a desire for ease in character creation and easily usable stereotypes than anything about your daily life outside the game. But it still pings my "I'd rather not think that way" sensor.

Lord Raziere

2022-07-04, 05:22 AM

I have always abided by the principle of "player characters are exceptional". They may be exceptional in one or many circumstances, but by their very nature they stand out.

Certainly, one could expect a character to exhibit some of the markings of their culture. I am most familiar with Golarion (Pathfinder's setting), so an example using that context.

Say your player is a Half-Orc from the realm of Ustalav. There are many assumptions I COULD make about that character based on the average beliefs and attitude of an Ustalavan.

-They are the product of sexual assault.
-They have experienced prejudice due to their blood (Ustalav is in a constant war with the Hold of Belkzen, a nation of orcs).
-They worship Pharasma (the goddess of death and birth) and/or Gorum (the god of battle, commonly worshipped by orcs and warriors of all stripes)
-They have a deep hatred for the undead (Ustalav is also plagued by the remnants of a legendary lich's army, and so hate undead even more than the average nation; also Pharasma is in part defined by her "kill on sight, no exceptions" policy for undead)
-They might be predisposed toward the class of Barbarian

And so the core of a character is born. A Half-Orc with a chip on their shoulder, a problem with their temper expressed through class (Barbarian), and who worships Gorum and seeks glorious battle and bloodshed. This is a perfectly fine character.

And so is a Half-Orc Paladin of Shelyn (goddess of art, beauty) that seeks to protect the beauty of things and people who have been rejected as "ugly" by society...like themselves.

Or an Orc Bloodline Sorcerer (or Bloodrager!) that embraces the savagery inherent in their bloodline and turns their bloodlust to constructive ends as a wandering monster exterminator.

And a devout Pharasmin Cleric who, following the tragedy of their birth (which took their mother's life), devoted their life to midwifery and healing.

All of these characters are great. None are "Humans with Half-Orc statblocks" despite the fact that several of these concepts work perfectly well as humans...or any other race.

Because race is not the be-all, end-all definer of a character. Nor should it be. That idea, again, shows a distinct lack of creativity. Race is a single facet of a character. CULTURE is a single facet of a character, because not even every person who is "of a culture" is part of a boring monolith of identical blank NPCs.

Players should feel free to use as much, or as little, of their race of home culture to define themselves as possible. Because race is, by far, the single least important thing about a character in terms of making them a character.

And I will express, again, that I find it disturbing that this is a controversial statement. I'm certainly reading too deeply into it; it surely indicates more of a desire for ease in character creation and easily usable stereotypes than anything about your daily life outside the game. But it still pings my "I'd rather not think that way" sensor.

I agree with this reasoning. I'd rather not think that way either. cultures and how people identify with them or how people are influenced by them are always easily defined, nor is it uniform. this idea seems like its trying to make the fluff part of making a character or NPCs into cookie cutters. the only reason I can see for this simplification to make lots of characters real quickly, when one could be going for quality over quantity- on both sides of the screen. a single good character can go a long way if you know how.

Boci

2022-07-04, 05:40 AM

I personally really don't like Forgotten Realms, I think it's a bad setting. I really do like Eberron, I think it's a really good setting. In Eberron I can count at least eight elven cultures at the top of my head.
Valenar
Aerenal
Dragonmarked business
Khorvaire cosmopolitan
Scorrow
Sulatar
Umbragen

Depending on where your elf comes from you got 8 different options of cultures to infuse into your character.

I'm pretty sure I have more. Because I can have my elf come from a non-elven culture and be influenced.infused by that. Does Eberron lore forbid this? Because I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

A majority human kingdom doesn't mean only humans, and nor does it mean the non-residents can't consider themselves to be part of it.

Hell the Great War is a fairly important part of Eberron history. You know what can happens during wars? People get displaced, and could end up in a different culture.

Sir_Chivalry

2022-07-04, 06:14 AM

I'm pretty sure I have more. Because I can have my elf come from a non-elven culture and be influenced.infused by that. Does Eberron lore forbid this? Because I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

A majority human kingdom doesn't mean only humans, and nor does it mean the non-residents can't consider themselves to be part of it.

Hell the Great War is a fairly important part of Eberron history. You know what can happens during wars? People get displaced, and could end up in a different culture.

Well as a person with a lot of Eberron knowledge, yes that's right.

Firstly the list above contains 5 elven cultures plus 3 drow (of which Scorrow is a monster within the culture, they are called Vulkoor), but one of those is actually doing a lot of glossing over. Khorvaire Cosmopolitan really should read:

Aundair
Breland
Thrane
Cyre
Karrnath
Eldeen Reaches
Lhazaar Principalities

And that last one further divides between the Bloodsails who were exiled and the normal sailor elves of the other Principalities

Plus "Aerenal" contains several cultures just amongst the Aereni, including rebellious youth subculture

And elves in the Khorvaire nations are noted for cleaving closer to national identity, not being more elvish. A Thrane elf and a Karrnath elf would be extremely different from each other

Then further is that all of these cultures are elastic enough to accept whatever a player wants to play. Keith Baker has said many times the PCs should be unique, powerful and notable, it doesn't break the lore to let people play what they want

Segev

2022-07-04, 06:22 AM

stoutstien

2022-07-04, 06:27 AM

As a DM I have no problem with optimizing or min/max behavior. honesty 90% of what ppl are describing are copy n paste builds they find online when they don't have the system knowledge to take advantage of them. Theoretically a sorcerer/paladin multiclass has greater flexibility and nova potential but 9/10 times the straight pally comes out ahead because it has better built in protection for poor decisions or miscommunication issues.

Boci

2022-07-04, 08:49 AM

And elves in the Khorvaire nations are noted for cleaving closer to national identity, not being more elvish. A Thrane elf and a Karrnath elf would be extremely different from each other

Then further is that all of these cultures are elastic enough to accept whatever a player wants to play. Keith Baker has said many times the PCs should be unique, powerful and notable, it doesn't break the lore to let people play what they want

Yeah, that's what I remembered from Eberron as well. Its weird that the person saying "But I am saying that if you ignore the racial culture" then appears to be ignoring the setting lore that says not all elves follow the common elven cultures of the continent.

All I will say on the race digression is that race should be more than cosmetic. And I think that there has been a push lately to make noncosmetic differences go away in the name of "creativity" in character concepts using "PCs are exceptional" as the justification. I oppose this, feeling that there should be more than pointy ears and a beard that make the difference between how an elf and a human and a dwarf play. No matter how creative it might seem to have an "exceptional" PC elf with a strong stomach (thus resistance to poison) and extra hit points.

I dislike this as well, too an extent. I don't like the floating stat approach and I dislike the build your own race in my own campaigns. Great tool to have in the game, just not for most of my games.

I believe PCs are exceptional, whilst still part of the game world. But the game world will have rebels and non-conformists. I believe there is a lot of area between "Non-human PCs must choose one of their own cultures in the setting and have a unique racial psychology that sets them apart from humans" and "Race is meaningless".

On the topic of PCs being exceptional, people on the forums often don't like my ruling that people wishing to play a child PC in my games get disadvantage on athletics checks. "But PCs are exceptional" they say. And yes, the PC child is exceptional, because they are a sorceror. Most children aren't sorcerors. But the few, exceptional children who are sorcerors, still get disadvantage on athletics checks until they grow older.

Thrudd

2022-07-04, 09:11 AM

All I will say on the race digression is that race should be more than cosmetic. And I think that there has been a push lately to make noncosmetic differences go away in the name of "creativity" in character concepts using "PCs are exceptional" as the justification. I oppose this, feeling that there should be more than pointy ears and a beard that make the difference between how an elf and a human and a dwarf play. No matter how creative it might seem to have an "exceptional" PC elf with a strong stomach (thus resistance to poison) and extra hit points.

I think that the move to give DMs (and players, too, I suppose) a system for building their own races/cultures is a good move. However, I agree that species/creatures with greatly different physical features should have specific mechanical effects beyond "+1 to this and +2 to that". Physiological features like enhanced senses, exceptional hardiness, being significantly larger or smaller than average human, innate magical powers, etc, should not be something that varies from individual to individual (unless you start allowing cross-breeding/half breeds with other species). Abilities that are the result of taught culture and tradition are probably more reasonably represented by backgrounds, or maybe an additional category of modifications called "culture" in addition to the professional/experiential background proficiencies. Whether or not players are allowed to invent new races for a game should be at DM's discretion only, obviously, since they are the primary authority on the setting that is to be used.

So, a "race builder" would have separate physiological features and cultural features, and probably a few unique backgrounds only available to characters from that particular culture. In the name of diversity and "specialness", a player could reasonably be able to choose their race, decide that the character was raised outside the normal culture of that race, and have a background unique to the culture that they were raised in. But the DM generally is the one who will decide what races and cultures are available in the setting, it doesn't make much sense for a player to be able to grab ala-carte any option from the race-builder rules with no consideration to setting (unless the DM grants that permission or they are allowing the players to help build the setting).

Of course, I'm also fine with a DM having the ability to decide that PCs in their game should only be humans with different lineages and cultures, no physiologically different species at all. I'm happy if the system goes in a direction encouraging each DM/table to create a more custom setting, and giving them good tools to do that, rather than requiring they adopt a gonzo kitchen-sink setting where the assumption is almost complete disconnect between the physical reality and aesthetics of the fictional world and the game mechanics.

MoiMagnus

2022-07-04, 09:12 AM

On the topic of PCs being exceptional, people on the forums often don't like my ruling that people wishing to play a child PC in my games get disadvantage on athletics checks. "But PCs are exceptional" they say. And yes, the PC child is exceptional, because they are a sorceror. Most children aren't sorcerors. But the few, exceptional children who are sorcerors, still get disadvantage on athletics checks until they grow older.

I understand them. It's very frustrating to have to chose between something that you want to try out and something that looks superior. And that's generally the issue with flaws, it might "look cool" to take a specific flaw (like having only one eye), but then you'll regret this choice at character creation each time you need to make a an action where this flaw is relevant (like a perception check).

[And systems that offer compensation for taking a flaw like "is a child" or "has only one eye" often lead to a lot of other issues]

Mastikator

2022-07-04, 09:20 AM

I'm pretty sure I have more.

Didn't realize it was a competition :smallconfused:

Boci

2022-07-04, 09:36 AM

I understand them. It's very frustrating to have to chose between something that you want to try out and something that looks superior. And that's generally the issue with flaws, it might "look cool" to take a specific flaw (like having only one eye), but then you'll regret this choice at character creation each time you need to make a an action where this flaw is relevant (like a perception check).

[And systems that offer compensation for taking a flaw like "is a child" or "has only one eye" often lead to a lot of other issues]

Sure, but that's why I choose athletics. How many athletics checks is a sorcerer really going to make? Plus I can always work with the player. I had another such incident where a player wanted to play a younger character, only they were a strength based fighter, so obviously they didn't want to have strength related stuff penalized. Well, this is a world full of magic, and they had been born to a family famous for their necromancery. So together we worked out that in the moment of birth, something had tried to grab them, dragging them away from life. It had failed by left its mark on their body. They had a hand print somewhere in their body, and as a consequence of this they had the strength of an adult from a very young age.

Didn't realize it was a competition :smallconfused:

Its not a competition, its about accurately describing the world of Eberron, and how many cultures an elven character there can choose from. And another poster agreed that no, it isn't just the elven nations you can choose from, per the setting lore.

Mastikator

2022-07-04, 09:45 AM

Its not a competition, its about accurately describing the world of Eberron, and how many cultures an elven character there can choose from. And another poster agreed that no, it isn't just the elven nations you can choose from, per the setting lore.

I'm pretty sure I said "at the top of my head" and not "this is a precise and exhaustive list", but what I actually write and what I get quote-replied on seems to have very little correlation in this thread, so I should've seen that coming. :smallsigh:

My bad, next time I will ignore the larger context of the conversation. I know everyone else will :smallannoyed:

Boci

2022-07-04, 09:49 AM

I'm pretty sure I said "at the top of my head" and not "this is a precise and exhaustive list", but what I actually write and what I get quote-replied on seems to have very little correlation in this thread, so I should've seen that coming. :smallsigh:

My bad

You're talking about cultures to infuse an elven PC with. If you agree that between refugees, migration and the descendants of, elven PCs can basically be infused with basically any culture in Eberron, then that was the point me and Rynjin were making and its weird you're arguing against us about, something.

On the one hand you say "if you ignore the racial culture that your group has agreed to by using a setting", but now you seem to be acknowledging that an elven PCs culture wouldn't have to be their racial culture because of how nations work in Eberron. Well which is it?

Mastikator

2022-07-04, 10:10 AM

You're talking about cultures to infuse an elven PC with. If you agree that between refugees, migration and the descendants of, elven PCs can basically be infused with basically any culture in Eberron, then that was the point me and Rynjin were making and its weird you're arguing against us about, something.

On the one hand you say "if you ignore the racial culture that your group has agreed to by using a setting", but now you seem to be acknowledging that an elven PCs culture wouldn't have to be their racial culture because of how nations work in Eberron. Well which is it?

I honestly see zero contradiction in what I said. Yes, I think you should use the setting's lore about races, and yes Eberron does not feature a mono-culture for elves. Whether said culture is of bad or good quality, mono or poly is irrelevant. The question at hand is if it is an elf of a given setting or a human with elf stat block.
I thought it was pretty clear when I said "pick one" after listing a set of the top of my head that picking one from a set of many or a set of one are both valid, and picking nothing from either set is bad.

I figured I could breach the hostility by saying that I too don't like Forgotten Realms and instead prefer Eberron. But that seems to have been in vain as well, I should've known that not listing the entirety of all cultures within eberron that elves could potentially be a part of would earn me some penalty points. Darn it. I'll try not to make that mistake again. I just keep screwing this up don't I?

Let's get back to what my point was. Let's assume you're playing in <INSERT SETTING HERE> and it's a setting you like, you choose to play <INSERT RACE HERE> and it's a race you like, you also like what <SETTING> does with <RACE>.
Now you have 2 options
1) infuse what <SETTING> says about <RACE> into your character
2) Not do that and instead make them fully unique and different from every other member of <RACE> found in <SETTING> (in fact, any setting)

I say that doing #2 is not good roleplay, and doing #1 is not automatically a crutch. In fact I go further to say that doing #1 is actually good because it allows you to easily remind the other players and DM that you are in fact playing a member of <RACE> and also to remind them of the distinctiveness of <SETTING>.

How does any of that relate to what OP said about power gaming? To be honest I see no conflict between a making sure your character is competent and roleplaying your character well.

Boci

2022-07-04, 10:16 AM

I honestly see zero contradiction in what I said. Yes, I think you should use the setting's lore about races, and yes Eberron does not feature a mono-culture for elves. Whether said culture is of bad or good quality, mono or poly is irrelevant. The question at hand is if it is an elf of a given setting or a human with elf stat block.
I thought it was pretty clear when I said "pick one" after listing a set of the top of my head that picking one from a set of many or a set of one are both valid, and picking nothing from either set is bad.

I figured I could breach the hostility by saying that I too don't like Forgotten Realms and instead prefer Eberron. But that seems to have been in vain as well, I should've known that not listing the entirety of all cultures within eberron that elves could potentially be a part of would earn me some penalty points. Darn it. I'll try not to make that mistake again. I just keep screwing this up don't I?

Let's get back to what my point was. Let's assume you're playing in <INSERT SETTING HERE> and it's a setting you like, you choose to play <INSERT RACE HERE> and it's a race you like, you also like what <SETTING> does with <RACE>.
Now you have 2 options
1) infuse what <SETTING> says about <RACE> into your character
2) Not do that and instead make them fully unique and different from every other member of <RACE> found in <SETTING> (in fact, any setting)

I say that doing #2 is not good roleplay, and doing #1 is not automatically a crutch. In fact I go further to say that doing #1 is actually good because it allows you to easily remind the other players and DM that you are in fact playing a member of <RACE> and also to remind them of the distinctiveness of <SETTING>.

How does any of that relate to what OP said about power gaming? To be honest I see no conflict between a making sure your character is competent and roleplaying your character well.

Okay sure, but who has said that? Who has said "I want to play an elf from set <SETTING> except I don't want any of <SETTING>'s lore"? Can you quote someone saying that? Maybe I just missed it but i didn't see anyone saying that.

What I have seen is people saying "Maybe I want to play an elf from <SETTING> and not use one of <SETTING>'s elven cultures for my backstory". And as ha been clarified and you except, that's fine, and doesn't constitute option 2 of making them fully unique, they just grew up somewhere else in the <SETTING>.

Pex

2022-07-04, 03:12 PM

Boci

2022-07-04, 03:21 PM

The Olympics would disagree with you.

Obviously gymnastic is acrobatics and not athletics. Probably. Maybe.

Segev

2022-07-04, 03:33 PM

On the topic of PCs being exceptional, people on the forums often don't like my ruling that people wishing to play a child PC in my games get disadvantage on athletics checks. "But PCs are exceptional" they say. And yes, the PC child is exceptional, because they are a sorceror. Most children aren't sorcerors. But the few, exceptional children who are sorcerors, still get disadvantage on athletics checks until they grow older.

Are the players of such PCs getting anything out of playing a child other than flavor? Does this flavor or other upside benefit them in a way that compensates for the disadvantage on athletics checks?

"Disadvantage on Athletics checks in return for advantage on Charisma checks relying on adult prejudices about children" could be worth it, for the right game and build.

Boci

2022-07-04, 03:37 PM

Are the players of such PCs getting anything out of playing a child other than flavor? Does this flavor or other upside benefit them in a way that compensates for the disadvantage on athletics checks?

"Disadvantage on Athletics checks in return for advantage on Charisma checks relying on adult prejudices about children" could be worth it, for the right game and build.

Nothing explicitly mechanical like that, but yeah they were a child and were treated that way. Even in a world were children could be dangerous magic users or shapeshifters, there is still a feeling of innocence for children. They were more likely to be underestimated them, and most humanoid enemies would not target them first unless they knew more about the party, since they would have qualms about hurting a child and just assume that the adults of the group were more dangerous.

Jervis

2022-07-04, 03:41 PM

Segev

2022-07-04, 03:41 PM

Nothing explicitly mechanical like that, but yeah they were a child and were treated that way. Even in a world were children could be dangerous magic users or shapeshifters, there is still a feeling of innocence for children. They were more likely to be underestimated them, and most humanoid enemies would not target them first unless they knew more about the party, since they would have qualms about hurting a child and just assume that the adults of the group were more dangerous.
If their were a session zero discussion and you explained the soft advantages you expect to give, I would probably be fine with it. Certainly, I would not build for athletics. Or I would build to negate the disadvantage. But probably just to avoid having to roll entirely, with spells that get me free from grapples and let me move freely if I absolutely have to. Misty Step comes to mind.

Dalinar

2022-07-04, 04:23 PM

snip

Ah, given the context of your original post I was under the impression you were getting negative reactions on how to play "normal-op" (for lack of a better word) from people who thought you were playing "high-op" or cheesy. My b.

JackPhoenix

2022-07-04, 04:43 PM

Snip

these four forms of power-gaming are not the same, and the fact they are treated as if they are is the thing that makes me unbearably frustrated with the 5e community's culture

That's because those aren't "four forms of power-gaming". Cheating is not powergaming, it's cheating, and the first three points on the list *are* the same thing, just taken to a different degree.

Boci

2022-07-04, 04:49 PM

That's because those aren't "four forms of power-gaming". Cheating is not powergaming, it's cheating, and the first three points on the list *are* the same thing, just taken to a different degree.

Yes, but the problem is groups who don't powergame often have an...interesting concept of what powergame is, and will often including cheating in it, and will sometimes conflate them. Its a bad habit human can have, subconscious lines of logic like, "Power gaming can involve cheating, this player sitting next to me is powergaming, ergo this player sitting next to me could well be cheating".

Rynjin

2022-07-04, 05:49 PM

Boci

2022-07-04, 06:01 PM

Culture is mutable, mechanics are static.

This is the big problem, and if not the direct cause for a lot of these disagreement then certainly a contributing factor: what is meant to be culture and what is meant to be genetic. Racial weapon proficiencies have traditionally been fluffed as cultural. High elves and wood elves aren't born knowing innately how to wield a longbow, their culture just ensures that they know it. But this came with a whole bunch of problems on how to handle, since the racial abilities are clearly labelled as whether their innate or culture based. 3.5 experimented with alternative racial traits to represent non-standard cultures for the these races. PF perfected this, in volume if nothing else.

5e would struggle to replicate this though though since the system is less granular and bonuses more tightly controlled. Instead they initially choose to explore the limit to what could be a racial trait from culture, implying at one point that dwarves aren't even genetically more tough, its purely a reflection of their culture's work ethic. Then they introduced floating ability bonuses to represent how a specific individual from a race could focus on any aspect they choose, and allowed freely changing proficiens, much like 3.5 had. Then they experimented with taking this even further with the build your own race options.

Pex

2022-07-04, 06:45 PM

Obviously gymnastic is acrobatics and not athletics. Probably. Maybe.

It's both. Plus swimming.

Boci

2022-07-04, 06:52 PM

It's both. Plus swimming.

Sure, but then D&D rules don't really handle simulating the Olympics that well, so I'm not too bothered if a houserule I made doesn't mesh that well with them.

Pex

2022-07-04, 06:54 PM

If you like optimization I recommend checking out the 3.5/pathfinder scene, there any less than mild optimization gets you laughed out of the room. There’s a million ways to make every class or build imaginable in both systems to the point that a party of all the same class is likely to have characters that play almost nothing alike. I actually do agree that the recent direction for the 5e community and 5E’s design has left me… dissatisfied.

For me the existence of Tasha’s build a race is extremely annoying. Now not only is the Half-Aasimar Half-Teifling Half-Genasi Half-Elf OC donutsteel inshrined in the rules, it’s mechanically incentivized so you can have a 18 starting with array stats. They powercrept Vuman and made the best option “I choose not to interact with the setting in any way and just insert this muppetkind race”. I like optimization options just not when the optimal choice is also the one that requires the least buy in to the setting.

1) The player may call his character part every race in the book, but mechanically he's not. His race is Custom Lineage. Custom Lineage "elf" is not immune to sleep magic. Custom Lineage "dwarf" is not resistant to poison. Custom Lineage is meant as a generic means to create a new race that's not published the DM wants to place in the gameworld. It's the floating ASI rule that allows player to match racial modifiers to the class he wants to play.

2) There is absolutely nothing wrong with an 18 at first level. It's not a horrible sin against gaming. 5E does not fall apart should it happen. Players can already have an 18 at first level if they so choose via dice rolling for ability scores which is the actual rule with Point Buy being the variant. A player can even have a 20 at first level if he's lucky enough to roll an 18 and put it in a score where racial modifier gives it +2. You don't have to like it, but 5E never forbade it. Point Buy does, but not 5E.

Liquor Box

2022-07-04, 06:54 PM

This is the big problem, and if not the direct cause for a lot of these disagreement then certainly a contributing factor: what is meant to be culture and what is meant to be genetic. Racial weapon proficiencies have traditionally been fluffed as cultural. High elves and wood elves aren't born knowing innately how to wield a longbow, their culture just ensures that they know it. But this came with a whole bunch of problems on how to handle, since the racial abilities are clearly labelled as whether their innate or culture based. 3.5 experimented with alternative racial traits to represent non-standard cultures for the these races. PF perfected this, in volume if nothing else.

Is that such a problem though? Surely groups and setting can just make their own rules as to what is genetic (presumably things like ability scores) and what is cultural (as you say, things like proficiencies). I guess mroe specificity in the rules is useful (as a default at least), but there are practical considerations.

Pex

2022-07-04, 06:56 PM

Ah, given the context of your original post I was under the impression you were getting negative reactions on how to play "normal-op" (for lack of a better word) from people who thought you were playing "high-op" or cheesy. My b.

Understood, s'ok.

I was more trying to help get the thread back on topic.

Boci

2022-07-04, 07:00 PM

Is that such a problem though? Surely groups and setting can just make their own rules as to what is genetic (presumably things like ability scores) and what is cultural (as you say, things like proficiencies). I guess mroe specificity in the rules is useful (as a default at least), but there are practical considerations.

For individual groups? Probably not, they likely have a way that works for them, but it can still cause disagreements. Like alignment. Its mostly works for a single group, but I have see groups fall apart if not over disagreements of the alignment then they certainly didn't help. One group I was in had a lengthy and quite heated discussion about the ethics of killing goblins for being goblins. The old school players insisted it was not only permitted but the duty of good characters to purge such evil creatures from the earth, with the more modern players pointing out that sounded a lot like genocide with should be evil. The final session we had with that group before deciding this wasn't going to work involved another such incident about potentially trusting some apparently evil lizardmen, but there were other contributing factors too.

As for culture vs. genetics for races, as I mentioned, at least in 5e, stats are not genetic either, they're cultural too, hence the floating stat bonuses and even before that fluff saying dwarves have a bonus to con because of their culture of hard work and being tough. Darkvision is presumably purely genetic though, as is fey-ancestry and the like, but with the guidlines given by the game even the poison resistance of dwarves could be cultural rather than genetic.

Jervis

2022-07-04, 07:50 PM

1) The player may call his character part every race in the book, but mechanically he's not. His race is Custom Lineage. Custom Lineage "elf" is not immune to sleep magic. Custom Lineage "dwarf" is not resistant to poison. Custom Lineage is meant as a generic means to create a new race that's not published the DM wants to place in the gameworld. It's the floating ASI rule that allows player to match racial modifiers to the class he wants to play.

2) There is absolutely nothing wrong with an 18 at first level. It's not a horrible sin against gaming. 5E does not fall apart should it happen. Players can already have an 18 at first level if they so choose via dice rolling for ability scores which is the actual rule with Point Buy being the variant. A player can even have a 20 at first level if he's lucky enough to roll an 18 and put it in a score where racial modifier gives it +2. You don't have to like it, but 5E never forbade it. Point Buy does, but not 5E.

I know being half Halfling and half half dragon doesn’t have a mechanical impact. It’s the fact that the mechanically best race just so happens to be the one that has players make up a new species with no pre-existing lore or connection to the setting that bothers me. Wanted to run a down to earth traditional fantasy game? Well Tasha says I can make a half celestial grey alien with a laser scope for an eye, also he gets 18 Dex and CBE.

Yes yes restricting options is a DMs right and job and Bla Bla Bla. But at the very least Vuman means a person is playing the most common race and easiest to justify in any given setting. I think more powerful options should require buy in with the setting, it’s why I think Clerics, Warlocks, Paladins, etc should be a tad bit stronger than other classes because they, in theory, mean the character has to have some connection to the setting beyond generic Aaracokra wizard. It’s also why I like the Dragonlance feat backgrounds because being part of very important in universe organizations gives you some good options. But custom lineage just says “i’m playing a saiyan”. It’s a stupid nit pick I know but eh.

Arkhios

2022-07-04, 11:27 PM

What community are we talking about, exactly? Vocal minority that consists of internet forums, and their like, or your group of likeminded individuals that you actually play with? Because, honestly, those are different things.

I've felt there's a distinctive amount of toxicity to be found especially in here, and I for one have decidedly kept a healthy distance from here for a good while now. Maybe you should try and take a break, as I've done? I really do hope you have a group of friends who share your interests in the hobby that you can meet every now and then for good old f2f sessions, or if absolutely necessary, via some form of online platform where you can see each others' faces, emotions, expressions and hear the tone of your speech.

In a faceless anonymous environment, risk of running into misunderstandings is very high because we can't see or hear the people we're interacting with. Relying solely upon some thoughts of anonymous people on the other side of your screen is more sick than people seem to be willing to admit.

Supermouse

2022-07-05, 12:04 AM

Roleplaying is part of the fun, but I won't apologize putting a 16 in my prime, 14 in CON, and have 18 AC at first level if proficient when other players have 10 CO, 14 in their prime, and only 15 AC despite proficiency. I don't apologize for knowing how to do stuff with my action, move, and bonus action efficiently. I don't apologize for knowing and using the rules. My roleplay comes with play. I put effort into it, but I don't apologize for also caring about the game mechanics.

This, so much. You don't need to make a character that sucks to be a "better roleplayer". There is nothing wrong in putting your highest score in your principal ability, specially in 5E, that wants to work like a "bounded system", and if you don't start with optimal stats and keep growing them you'll fall behind the challenge curve and be screwed.
Heck, the newer rules even support player making their special, wacky characters in a way that works mechanically within the game restraints (oh, you mean you want to be a Tiefling who wants to go against their infernal blood and dedicates themselves to be a Life Priest? Awesome, I've never seen anyone doing something similar to this before, you're so original and your character will be so special. Here, change the +2 to CHA to +2 to WIS so you won't completely suck at your job).

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-05, 12:16 AM

This, so much. You don't need to make a character that sucks to be a "better roleplayer". There is nothing wrong in putting your highest score in your principal ability, specially in 5E, that wants to work like a "bounded system", and if you don't start with optimal stats and keep growing them you'll fall behind the challenge curve and be screwed.
Heck, the newer rules even support player making their special, wacky characters in a way that works mechanically within the game restraints (oh, you mean you want to be a Tiefling who wants to go against their infernal blood and dedicates themselves to be a Life Priest? Awesome, I've never seen anyone doing something similar to this before, you're so original and your character will be so special. Here, change the +2 to CHA to +2 to WIS so you won't completely suck at your job).

Uh, no. The system expects you to have a +4 in your main stat by level 15 or so. That's... It. Oh, and a negative Con mod is probably not ok. Other than that? No, you don't need to "start with optimal stats and keep increasing them" to not get screwed.

Just like it's ok to start with an 18 main stat, it's ok to start with a 15 main stat. At least as far as the system is concerned. That's the beauty of bounded accuracy --the difference between 15 and 18 just isn't that much, because the target numbers don't vary that much. At least the way the system is designed at the base. Despite what people say, the median encounter the system expects is closer to CR of level/2 (and 1-2 enemies per PC) than to CR of level + bunches and one enemy.

You know what the difference in average ac is for monsters from CR 1/2 to 10? Like 2-3 (13 to about 15.something. And that's median encounters from 1 -20.

Supermouse

2022-07-05, 12:52 AM

I just question why he'd do so "in his elven way"? He wasn't raised by elves. He has no direct experience with elven culture.

This is the issue I'm talking about, treating cultural features as though they're innate, genetic qualities.

That is a big part of the cringe I'm referring to. Would you discuss a human IRL in such terms? I imagine not.

Well, the thing is, technically Elves have some innate, genetic differences from Dwarves, and that may color how he'd honor Dwarven traditions and how he would feel about the clan.

To start, Elves are phisically very different from Dwarves. Yeah, someone will come here and say "noooo, let's not fall back to racism" yadda yadda, but the fact is that the Elf will realize he's different from the Dwarves, it doesn't matter how much the Dwarves try to ignore it. Unless the Elf is Adam Sandler in one of his old movies.
Then, for instance, the Elf raised by Dwarves would feel different about honoring the ancestors. They may honour them due to respect for those who raised them, but they would have no blood relationship with those ancestors, it would not be exactly the same thing as for a Dwarf.
An Elf has a weaker constitution than a Dwarf. An Elf raised among dwarves might be sturdier than a "regular Elf", but he still wouldn't have an innate, genetic resistance to poison, for instance. Did it influence his relations with the rest of the clan? Were the other Dwarves making fun of him all the time because he couldn't hold his liquor as well as them? Was going into underground expeditions extremely dangerous to him, because the wild creatures underground are most often than not poisonous, so the Dwarves decided to never send him there? Did that make him feel inadequate?
An Elf doesn't sleep. What did he do in those long nights, while everyone was sleeping, except for the guards? Maybe he volunteered to be a night watcher, to make use of his "not sleeping", and to prove his worth to the clan?

See, there are lots of interesting questions that can shape how the Elf raised by Dwarves would be different from a Dwarf raised by Dwarves. If you're just gonna make your character be an Elf raised by Dwarves because you think this makes him special, and that this is "good roleplaying", but then there's absolutely no difference between your character and a regular Dwarf, then what's the point, exactly?

Uh, no. The system expects you to have a +4 in your main stat by level 15 or so. That's... It. Oh, and a negative Con mod is probably not ok. Other than that? No, you don't need to "start with optimal stats and keep increasing them" to not get screwed.

Just like it's ok to start with an 18 main stat, it's ok to start with a 15 main stat. At least as far as the system is concerned. That's the beauty of bounded accuracy --the difference between 15 and 18 just isn't that much, because the target numbers don't vary that much. At least the way the system is designed at the base. Despite what people say, the median encounter the system expects is closer to CR of level/2 (and 1-2 enemies per PC) than to CR of level + bunches and one enemy.

You know what the difference in average ac is for monsters from CR 1/2 to 10? Like 2-3 (13 to about 15.something. And that's median encounters from 1 -20.

This is the math I was refering to: https://rpgbot.net/dnd5/characters/fundamental_math/

It assumes a 65% success rate if you have your prime ability at max level and can use your proficiency bonus, against all challenge rates. The percentage stays pretty consistent, as long as you keep your prime ability maxed up.
Also, barring some shenanigans that surely weren't intended when writing the rules, you can't start with a 18 in an ability score, the max would be 17. And, if you look at the table, the game assumes you have a +3 modifier at level 1, a +4 modifier at level 4 and a +5 modifier at level 8, to keep that 65% success rate.

Gurgeh

2022-07-05, 01:09 AM

ProsecutorGodot

2022-07-05, 01:12 AM

Also, barring some shenanigans that surely weren't intended when writing the rules, you can't start with a 18 in an ability score, the max would be 17. And, if you look at the table, the game assumes you have a +3 modifier at level 1, a +4 modifier at level 4 and a +5 modifier at level 8, to keep that 65% success rate.

We're this far into this edition and people still seem to forget that rolling for stats is the primary ability score generation method, standard array is a secondary option and point buy is a variant rule.

Uh, no. The system expects you to have a +4 in your main stat by level 15 or so. That's... It. Oh, and a negative Con mod is probably not ok. Other than that? No, you don't need to "start with optimal stats and keep increasing them" to not get screwed.
Though I agree with the point you're making, bounded accuracy actually doesn't assume any increases to the players ability modifiers, scheduled or otherwise.

Here's an excerpt from a quote by Rodney Thompson, one of the designers of 5e.

The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game that the player’s attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster’s hit points
...
This extends beyond simple attacks and damage. We also make the same assumptions about character ability modifiers and skill bonuses.

This is just nitpicking though, I understand and agree with the overall point you're making.

Witty Username

2022-07-05, 01:16 AM

Though I agree with the point you're making, bounded accuracy actually doesn't assume any increases to the players ability modifiers, scheduled or otherwise.

There have even been a few in the optimization crowd that have claimed that in Feats games, spending ASIs on ability scores is sub-optimal. I am trying to recall who it was that took the hard stance saying that that was true in all cases.

OldTrees1

2022-07-05, 01:21 AM

This is the math I was refering to: https://rpgbot.net/dnd5/characters/fundamental_math/

It assumes a 65% success rate if you have your prime ability at max level and can use your proficiency bonus, against all challenge rates. The percentage stays pretty consistent, as long as you keep your prime ability maxed up.
Also, barring some shenanigans that surely weren't intended when writing the rules, you can't start with a 18 in an ability score, the max would be 17. And, if you look at the table, the game assumes you have a +3 modifier at level 1, a +4 modifier at level 4 and a +5 modifier at level 8, to keep that 65% success rate.

That math assumes the enemies a Nth level party fights are predominantly CR N. Unfortunately that is an irrational and misleading assumption in 5E. 5E assumes low CR monsters will still be encountered by high level parties. It can be tricky to calculated expected AC when taking that into account, but suffice to say the expected AC will be noticeably lower than the math they used.

They expect an 8th level party would expect to face AC 16, however the actual expectation is closer to AC 14. This changes the conclusion from "hurry, panic, 20 Str by 8th" to "bah, if you started with a 16 Str, then a 16 Str by 8th is good enough. 5E is designed without assuming specific ASIs".

Here it is from a designer's mouth (courtesy of ProsecutorGofot's quote):

Bounded accuracy actually doesn't assume any increases to the players ability modifiers, scheduled or otherwise.

Here's an excerpt from a quote by Rodney Thompson, one of the designers of 5e.

The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game that the player’s attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster’s hit points
...
This extends beyond simple attacks and damage. We also make the same assumptions about character ability modifiers and skill bonuses.

ProsecutorGodot

2022-07-05, 01:25 AM

There have even been a few in the optimization crowd that have claimed that in Feats games, spending ASIs on ability scores is sub-optimal. I am trying to recall who it was that took the hard stance saying that that was true in all cases.

In some contexts I could see that as a reasonable argument, but as a general statement I'm not sure. Sure, bounded accuracy might not assume you have these increases but these increases do often come with a meaningful power increase even if its just a handful of numbers adjustments.

Very contextual I'd say. As an example, +2 Con, Tough, Res (Con) and Inspiring Leader all kind of touch on the same part of Bounded Accuracy but have different beneficial effects that change in usefulness depending on the character looking to choose between them. Without context, I don't think you could definitively tell someone which of these options is better.

Gurgeh

2022-07-05, 01:26 AM

And, likewise, 15 strength at 3rd is Good Enough. If you got unlucky or want to switch things up a bit and invest more heavily in secondary stats then you're not going to be completely hamstrung.

Supermouse

2022-07-05, 01:42 AM

You can start with an 18 in any ability score if you roll well. If you use the recommended 4d6 drop lowest, then it is highly likely (though, of course, not guaranteed) that you can achieve this, since it just requires one result of 16 or better from six rolls. You can start with a 20 in an ability score if you roll really well!

Remember, point buy is a variant rule: the default rules call for rolled stats or the standard array. The game is very much able to absorb a character being slightly ahead of the curve, especially when they're running into a hard cap in the long run.

We're this far into this edition and people still seem to forget that rolling for stats is the primary ability score generation method, standard array is a secondary option and point buy is a variant rule.

Heh, everytime I play the group uses the standard array, so I always forget random rolling is the "main" option. Although, IIRC, Adventure League also uses the standard array (I'm not sure because there's no AL in my country, so I've enver played it), so the standard array might as well be the "default" creation method. Also, starting with a 16-17 in an ability score fits with the "65% math", so I really doubt this is not intentional.

I have always abided by the principle of "player characters are exceptional". They may be exceptional in one or many circumstances, but by their very nature they stand out.

Certainly, one could expect a character to exhibit some of the markings of their culture. I am most familiar with Golarion (Pathfinder's setting), so an example using that context.

Say your player is a Half-Orc from the realm of Ustalav. There are many assumptions I COULD make about that character based on the average beliefs and attitude of an Ustalavan.

-They are the product of sexual assault.
-They have experienced prejudice due to their blood (Ustalav is in a constant war with the Hold of Belkzen, a nation of orcs).
-They worship Pharasma (the goddess of death and birth) and/or Gorum (the god of battle, commonly worshipped by orcs and warriors of all stripes)
-They have a deep hatred for the undead (Ustalav is also plagued by the remnants of a legendary lich's army, and so hate undead even more than the average nation; also Pharasma is in part defined by her "kill on sight, no exceptions" policy for undead)
-They might be predisposed toward the class of Barbarian

And so the core of a character is born. A Half-Orc with a chip on their shoulder, a problem with their temper expressed through class (Barbarian), and who worships Gorum and seeks glorious battle and bloodshed. This is a perfectly fine character.

And so is a Half-Orc Paladin of Shelyn (goddess of art, beauty) that seeks to protect the beauty of things and people who have been rejected as "ugly" by society...like themselves.

Or an Orc Bloodline Sorcerer (or Bloodrager!) that embraces the savagery inherent in their bloodline and turns their bloodlust to constructive ends as a wandering monster exterminator.

And a devout Pharasmin Cleric who, following the tragedy of their birth (which took their mother's life), devoted their life to midwifery and healing.

All of these characters are great. None are "Humans with Half-Orc statblocks" despite the fact that several of these concepts work perfectly well as humans...or any other race.

Because race is not the be-all, end-all definer of a character. Nor should it be. That idea, again, shows a distinct lack of creativity. Race is a single facet of a character. CULTURE is a single facet of a character, because not even every person who is "of a culture" is part of a boring monolith of identical blank NPCs.

Players should feel free to use as much, or as little, of their race of home culture to define themselves as possible. Because race is, by far, the single least important thing about a character in terms of making them a character.

And I will express, again, that I find it disturbing that this is a controversial statement. I'm certainly reading too deeply into it; it surely indicates more of a desire for ease in character creation and easily usable stereotypes than anything about your daily life outside the game. But it still pings my "I'd rather not think that way" sensor.

But see, there, in all your examples, the character has something inherent to his race/culture integrated in his concept. That's what makes them not being "Humans with Half-Orc statblocks". Sometimes it's not even "integrated in their concept", but it's just something that changes their perspective about certain things (the Paladin is a good example of that). And by what I understood so far, that's what's being argued by Mastikator.
Now, if I create a Half-Orc Fighter from the realm of Ustalay and treat him exactly like if he was "Joe the Human Fighter who had his farm raided and his parent's killed" and didn't even want for people to acknowledge he's an Half-Orc because "I don't want to bring race issues into my game", then what would make him not be just a Human with Half-Orc stats?

Rynjin

2022-07-05, 01:59 AM

But see, there, in all your examples, the character has something inherent to his race/culture integrated in his concept. That's what makes them not being "Humans with Half-Orc statblocks". Sometimes it's not even "integrated in their concept", but it's just something that changes their perspective about certain things (the Paladin is a good example of that). And by what I understood so far, that's what's being argued by Mastikator.
Now, if I create a Half-Orc Fighter from the realm of Ustalay and treat him exactly like if he was "Joe the Human Fighter who had his farm raided and his parent's killed" and didn't even want for people to acknowledge he's an Half-Orc because "I don't want to bring race issues into my game", then what would make him not be just a Human with Half-Orc stats?

Something, yes! But not everything. Which seems to be (and I may be wrong) the disconnect I have with Mastikator's opinion. Absolutely, making a character who is so averse to having their race even be mentioned is a bit suspect (why not just play Human anyway? They're the best race in PF lol), but several absolutely do "stand apart" from the default assumptions of their culture (and are flexible enough to fit multiple races to boot) and I think that's fine, or better than fine.

Supermouse

2022-07-05, 02:10 AM

Something, yes! But not everything. Which seems to be (and I may be wrong) the disconnect I have with Mastikator's opinion. Absolutely, making a character who is so averse to having their race even be mentioned is a bit suspect (why not just play Human anyway? They're the best race in PF lol), but several absolutely do "stand apart" from the default assumptions of their culture (and are flexible enough to fit multiple races to boot) and I think that's fine, or better than fine.

I think it's mostly a misunderstanding problem, then. What Mastikator says, and I agree with him, is that your race (and culture, if that's the case) should influence your character or how he views the world, even if he's an outlier and is not just an entry in the Monster Manual (which no character should be either way). I mean, OK, your character is an outlier. But he's an outlier of what, specifically? Drizzt is an outlier, but he's still a Drow. His entire character is defined by the fact he's a Drow trying the best he can to not do Drow things and to actually fight against Drow things.
Characters should be individuals, for sure, but they are part of a race, even if they aren't a monolithic culture. Sure, not every Elf is a tree hugger, and even if you want to make your Elf a tree hugger, he still has his own personality and is not (or at least, should not be) exactly the same as other Elves. BUT he's still an Elf, whatever that may mean in your setting.

And, of course, absolutely nothing we are discussing here has anything to do with optimization or "power playing" (unless we count using a race just for the stats and completely ignoring everything else related to it as "power playing").

Lord Raziere

2022-07-05, 02:10 AM

Something, yes! But not everything. Which seems to be (and I may be wrong) the disconnect I have with Mastikator's opinion. Absolutely, making a character who is so averse to having their race even be mentioned is a bit suspect (why not just play Human anyway? They're the best race in PF lol), but several absolutely do "stand apart" from the default assumptions of their culture (and are flexible enough to fit multiple races to boot) and I think that's fine, or better than fine.

Indeed. the argument for more alien races seems to focus on making a character's race the core of a character's identity, which is what I think we both don't like. A character's race is a detail like anything else. how important it is or how much emphasis is placed on it, is up to how comfortable the player is with that, not some forumite demanding that these races be held to some arbitrary standard of alien-ness so that they can feel sufficiently different from humans to their particular sensibilities. If those people want to trek logic their character into being a mere extension of their culture they can do it for their own characters and games, but they have no right to demand it of others to do the same.

Edit: this "culture/race has to be a core trait" idea is being presented as inherently good. it is not. it is an idea that could be executed well or executed poorly, and execution is just as important as the idea itself. a player may not have the competence, comfortableness or willingness to execute it well and may want and/or be able to achieve a good execution with a different idea of how to create a character. If they achieve a good execution of the character through other methods, what is the problem? none.

Boci

2022-07-05, 02:40 AM

I think it's mostly a misunderstanding problem, then. What Mastikator says, and I agree with him, is that your race (and culture, if that's the case) should influence your character or how he views the world, even if he's an outlier and is not just an entry in the Monster Manual (which no character should be either way).

The problem is when you focus on race and not culture, which is how this was presented, it sounds an awful lot like "elves must do things elvishly or you're a bad roleplayer". There was great talk of "racial culture" with little to no mention of how the non-racial culture aspect of your character could be the defining feature instead, and it was also claimed that if anyone ever forgets your race, you're doing something wrong, which again bring to mind "elves do stuff elfishly" because if you're roleplaying a character as fully realized individual, it would seem valid for sometimes those individual traits to down play their race. Hell, I was told my elves were just pointy eared humans because I explained how elves from 3 different nations in my world would have different attitudes to being elven.

And I'll go one step further and say this whole conversation is sounding an awful lot like "you have to roleplay or you're doing it wrong". You asked:

then what would make him not be just a Human with Half-Orc stats?

And I'll counter: so what if he is? Because its hard to imagine you didn't choose that wording to imply there's something with doing so, so what exactly is wrong with wanting to play a half-orc and not have it influence their character? Maybe they don't like roleplaying and just wanted the half-orc traits? Maybe they based their character on a picture, who was a half-orc? Are you not allowed to do that if you don't roleplay?

Jophiel

2022-07-05, 08:10 AM

Heh, everytime I play the group uses the standard array, so I always forget random rolling is the "main" option. Although, IIRC, Adventure League also uses the standard array (I'm not sure because there's no AL in my country, so I've enver played it), so the standard array might as well be the "default" creation method.
AL is probably part of it. Another part of why rolling never pings me as the 5e Default is because I rarely come across a table brave enough to actually roll 4d6 six times and accept it. It's always seems to come with home-ruled safety nets like "...and re-roll any 1s" or "...roll twice and pick the better array" or "...and you can use any array rolled at the table", etc.

Keltest

2022-07-05, 08:50 AM

AL is probably part of it. Another part of why rolling never pings me as the 5e Default is because I rarely come across a table brave enough to actually roll 4d6 six times and accept it. It's always seems to come with home-ruled safety nets like "...and re-roll any 1s" or "...roll twice and pick the better array" or "...and you can use any array rolled at the table", etc.

My group requires a certain minimum total rolled so that everybody meets at least a certain threshold of power, but IME the biggest reason that groups will shy away from rolling dice is because of the potential for disparity in stats. One person having 5 or even 10 more stat points than another can be a little off putting.

KorvinStarmast

2022-07-05, 09:08 AM

In a faceless anonymous environment, risk of running into misunderstandings is very high because we can't see or hear the people we're interacting with. Relying solely upon some thoughts of anonymous people on the other side of your screen is more sick than people seem to be willing to admit. But there is some good advice to be had here also. It's a matter of using filters.

the problem is that stigma against coffeelocking specifically is so vehement and disproportionate that I didn't want to lump it in with exploits because I knew It would only bite me in the ass The problem is that WoTC threw in a stupid invocation the messed up their SR/LR game rhythm (which was already a little messy with that silly "trance" thing that elves do).

I keep coming back to this thread hoping to compare my experiences about the treatment of optimization as a subject with other peoples' experiences, especially considering OP has had a radically worse experience on that front than I have. FWIW, the basic rules guide new players into mild optimization in their quick build. Look at all of the quick build advice for all 12 classes in the PHB. notice a trend? That's not powergaming, that's fitting the fictional character to the ability score which their class makes the most use out of.

And so on, and so on-- the anti-powergaming mentality you're talking about has always been a part of this edition's DNA.

The reason that it still lingers, I think, is that 5e balance is honestly pretty damn tight. Yes, as compared to some of the other editions.

I'm playing an aasimar (pre-multiverse) circle of stars druid. At the time I was 4th level, 18 WI. Action: Transform into angelic form. Move: Fly up 30 ft. Bonus Action: Go into Archer Constellation form and attack with its range spell attack hitting and doing 1d8 + 8 radiant damage. The other players freaked out wanting to know how I was able to do all that. I had to go step by step explaining how each ability worked. I knew how to spend my turn efficiently. Well done! :smallsmile: Understanding the action economy isn't power gaming, it's knowing the rules of the game.

Obviously gymnastic is acrobatics and not athletics. Probably. Maybe. It's athletics that includes acrobatics. (IMO, acrobatics as a skill proficiency is extraneous).

Cheating is not powergaming, it's cheating, and the first three points on the list *are* the same thing, just taken to a different degree. *golf clap*
It's both. Plus swimming. Yes.

You don't need to make a character that sucks to be a "better roleplayer". There is nothing wrong in putting your highest score in your principal ability, specially in 5E, that wants to work like a "bounded system", and if you don't start with optimal stats and keep growing them you'll fall behind the challenge curve and be screwed. Yes, and the PHB/Basic Rules even guide new players into where to put their highest ability score in the quick build section for each class. :smallsmile:

Not sure if I'll ever make a 'custom race' but I am sure I can enjoy that also if the opportunity comes up.

Segev

2022-07-05, 09:54 AM

This, so much. You don't need to make a character that sucks to be a "better roleplayer". There is nothing wrong in putting your highest score in your principal ability, specially in 5E, that wants to work like a "bounded system", and if you don't start with optimal stats and keep growing them you'll fall behind the challenge curve and be screwed.
Heck, the newer rules even support player making their special, wacky characters in a way that works mechanically within the game restraints (oh, you mean you want to be a Tiefling who wants to go against their infernal blood and dedicates themselves to be a Life Priest? Awesome, I've never seen anyone doing something similar to this before, you're so original and your character will be so special. Here, change the +2 to CHA to +2 to WIS so you won't completely suck at your job).

It is not necessary to give the Tiefling +2 Wis instead of +2 Cha in order to "not suck" at being a cleric. He can dump Charisma if he wants to, and put his highest generated stat into Wisdom. The game works fine if he has only a +2 Wis mod. That's the point of bounded accuracy. That said, there are ways to get Wisdom 16 without a +2 racial modifier. And nothing in the game says you suck at your job if you lack a +4 from stat.

The one place where there's a real argument that the racial stat modifiers can be "punishingly" bad is if you use point-buy. This is best solved by having the +2 be changed to 4 extra points-for-buying-stats added to the point total of that stat.

Wrapping this back around to the original topic, I wonder if the belief that "you have to have a +4 stat mod at level 1" is one of those "D&D community" canons that the OP is sick of, or not.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-05, 10:05 AM

Wrapping this back around to the original topic, I wonder if the belief that "you have to have a +4 stat mod at level 1" is one of those "D&D community" canons that the OP is sick of, or not.

It's a "D&D community canon" that I'm sick of, as is the "all fights are against bosses" and "CR = level". :smallwink:

Now to be sure, I don't have a problem with people starting with an 18. Or a 15. It just doesn't matter all that much either way. And measuring it falls prey to a lot of cognitive biases that I think make the (over) use of statistics and average values way more of a problem than they'd be in, say, an MMO (IMO). Specifically--
1) the challenges aren't fixed
2) the actual distributions aren't that big--invoking the Law of Large Numbers is rather fraught when you may make only a few dozen rolls against any given target, and some of those come from different distributions (advantage/disadvantage).
3) people aren't actually tracking the numbers in detail (and are generally horrible with numbers), so you get recency, negativity, and a host of other biases.

Yet people in these online communities too frequently take first-and-second decimal place differences in DPR (already a manufactured, white-room metric) as meaningful.

Dr.Samurai

2022-07-05, 10:22 AM

Boci

2022-07-05, 11:03 AM

It's athletics that includes acrobatics. (IMO, acrobatics as a skill proficiency is extraneous).

That would make balancing either either a strength based thing, or intro alternate ability modifiers for skill checks into the regular mechanics, rather than edge cases they currently are. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but something to consider. It certainly can feel bad sometimes needing to choose between the two.

And this is what I mean by the skill system not really supporting Olympics, so I'm not too bothered if my houserule clash with them a bit. Plus I'm a human being, I can make exceptions. Climbing a tree, with plenty of branches? Children do that just fine, no disadvantage? Climbing a sheer rock face? Making a tricky jump? Wrestling with someone? Yeah those will have disadvantage.

Segev

2022-07-05, 11:09 AM

Oh, having a +4 vs. a +2 to your stat mod makes a difference, especially in whatever you're using primarily to attack (or set save DCs). No question. You will notice the difference. But it doesn't make or break a character, nor does it make a character useless. And the frequency of repeat-saves means that generally, even those with 20s in their casting stat will find the enemies making their saves fairly frequently. A difference of 1-2 rounds is not trivial, but it also isn't the difference between "overpowered" and "useless."

I do advise DMs to call for ability checks to allow players to try oddball solutions to things. That dumped charisma that isn't quite so badly dumped because the Tiefling had +2 to it might be surprisingly helpful.

But mainly: remember that 5e expects DC 20 to be hard. It's not a GREAT guideline, but it's what we have, and I think a lot of DMs must fall into the trap of thinking that Expertise can get rolls in the mid-20s "often enough" that a "challenge" is a DC 23 roll. No, that's actually quite difficult by 5e's expectations. Getting anything between a 15 and a 20 should be considered as if the die roll were all there is, I think, in terms of determining how hard things are. "Natural 20" on ability checks doesn't mean auto-success or anything, but it should still feel amazing because it gets you that DC 20 check. Or, if you've got a stat with a penalty, a natural 20 still gets you over a 15, which should succeed on a fair number of checks.

Where "PCs are exceptional" should be more considered is in the raw numbers: if a PC has a +18 to stealth in 5e - doable at surprisingly low level if you work for it - that is the PC being exceptional, not a sign that you need to give passive perceptions of 28 to everything. That PC should be almost impossible for enemies to discover when he's hiding. Because he is exceptional.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-05, 11:22 AM

@PhoenixPhyre: Are you basically saying that there's no real difference between having an 18 or a 15 that's experienced in actual gameplay?

Because my thoughts on this are as follows... I don't think "you don't need to level up attack stat" and "+2 modifier is fine" are a way I would want to play the game. It means if you don't have a magic item (and those are not guaranteed remember) then Prof bonus will get you to 55% chance of hitting against "AC according to CR" in Tier 2, and 50% going into tier 3 and beyond. And that's against same level AC. There will be monsters with higher AC, and you will fight monsters of higher CR. So your chances are either 50/50 or less, before Disadvantage from any debuffs/conditions makes those chances worse.

I would not like 50/50 odds of landing a hit on same level CR creatures, or having to rely on buffs to have better than even odds. So for me I'd rather boost my attack modifier.

But it sounds like you're saying this opinion is based on mostly biases, and the concerns are not really realized in game. Is that the case?

EDIT: Answered by Tanarii's post, thank you!

Both the "don't use CR = level" answer and the fact that my statement was about level 1. I fully expect people to put at least one ASI into their prime stat along the way. And think that most people will max it out. But that the system is basically fine with you having an 18 (+4) at level 20.

I think that starting with a 15 (and bumping it at level 4, and usually level 8) OR starting with an 18 and bumping it...once or never both end up being roughly the same. At least if most people in the party are. Sure, if you've got a party full of 15-prime-stats and one guy who starts with a 20, there'll be some perceived disparity. But I think that the perception is larger than the reality. And once you hit level 4 (which happens real fast), that disparity mostly goes away.

For reference, the book-value AC for CR 1/2 (level 1) is 13. The book-value AC for CR 10 (level 20) is only 17. And considering that your proficiency bonus goes up by 4 over that span...

So the big issue comes in when you assume that the median encounter is CR = level + X (X >= 0). That is the distortion that makes all the theorycraft people do diverge strongly from the system expectations.

Edit:

Oh, having a +4 vs. a +2 to your stat mod makes a difference, especially in whatever you're using primarily to attack (or set save DCs). No question. You will notice the difference. But it doesn't make or break a character, nor does it make a character useless. And the frequency of repeat-saves means that generally, even those with 20s in their casting stat will find the enemies making their saves fairly frequently. A difference of 1-2 rounds is not trivial, but it also isn't the difference between "overpowered" and "useless."

I do advise DMs to call for ability checks to allow players to try oddball solutions to things. That dumped charisma that isn't quite so badly dumped because the Tiefling had +2 to it might be surprisingly helpful.

But mainly: remember that 5e expects DC 20 to be hard. It's not a GREAT guideline, but it's what we have, and I think a lot of DMs must fall into the trap of thinking that Expertise can get rolls in the mid-20s "often enough" that a "challenge" is a DC 23 roll. No, that's actually quite difficult by 5e's expectations. Getting anything between a 15 and a 20 should be considered as if the die roll were all there is, I think, in terms of determining how hard things are. "Natural 20" on ability checks doesn't mean auto-success or anything, but it should still feel amazing because it gets you that DC 20 check. Or, if you've got a stat with a penalty, a natural 20 still gets you over a 15, which should succeed on a fair number of checks.

Where "PCs are exceptional" should be more considered is in the raw numbers: if a PC has a +18 to stealth in 5e - doable at surprisingly low level if you work for it - that is the PC being exceptional, not a sign that you need to give passive perceptions of 28 to everything. That PC should be almost impossible for enemies to discover when he's hiding. Because he is exceptional.

I agree with basically all of this. Sure, you might notice a difference. But it's not gamebreaking. And yes, IMO, the game goes way better if you stick to an ability check range of 10(ish) - 20, with anything higher being something EXCEPTIONALLY EXCEPTIONAL. It's totally fine if the specialist isn't challenged by something in their specialty. As long as you don't also let one success solve the whole challenge for everyone. A locked door, by itself, isn't a real challenge. No matter what the DC is. Neither is the rogue sneaking by all the guards...as long as the rest of the party has to deal with them somehow. Basically, any challenge that can be solved by a single player acting alone (especially by a single check of a single player) wasn't a real challenge. It might be there for thematics or to show how cool the specialist is, but it wasn't a challenge. Real challenges, as with combat, can't be solved by one person acting alone. Or shouldn't be able to be.

Supermouse

2022-07-05, 01:54 PM

The problem is when you focus on race and not culture, which is how this was presented, it sounds an awful lot like "elves must do things elvishly or you're a bad roleplayer". There was great talk of "racial culture" with little to no mention of how the non-racial culture aspect of your character could be the defining feature instead, and it was also claimed that if anyone ever forgets your race, you're doing something wrong, which again bring to mind "elves do stuff elfishly" because if you're roleplaying a character as fully realized individual, it would seem valid for sometimes those individual traits to down play their race. Hell, I was told my elves were just pointy eared humans because I explained how elves from 3 different nations in my world would have different attitudes to being elven.

The specific point here is: even if they are of different cultures, they still are Elves. They have some stuff that makes them completely different from other races (namely, they live longer and they don't sleep). This means that, even if they are from different countries altogether, they'll still be different from Humans, and they'll still have some common points in between them. It's really hard to correlate this to the real world, because as much as there are different races and cultures and nations with differences in between Humans, we are all, well, Human, so we kinda take all our similarities for granted. If you notice, it doesn't matter the civilization/nation/culture/whatever, we all have a few points in common: we settle near water sources, we dispose of our dead, we try to have shelters with soft spots to sleep, we tend to organize in hierarchies with a centralized leadership, we have a certain outlook of life with the tendency to find solace in an "afterlife" or the possibility of reincarnation to contend with our arguably short life spam. If there were a different sencient specias dividing the planet with us, and they had somewhat different needs/biology, like a race that doesn't sleep, or that lives 5 times the average Human lifespan, or that is alergic to water, even if those guys had numerous different countries and cultures (and even skin tones making them kill each other from time to time), they'd have something in common with them that would be somewhat different from us. That's what people mean when they talk about the "elvishness" or the "dwarfiness".

And I'll counter: so what if he is? Because its hard to imagine you didn't choose that wording to imply there's something with doing so, so what exactly is wrong with wanting to play a half-orc and not have it influence their character? Maybe they don't like roleplaying and just wanted the half-orc traits? Maybe they based their character on a picture, who was a half-orc? Are you not allowed to do that if you don't roleplay?

See, what sparked all this discussion that derailed the thread was that some people think that "creating a non stereotypical character concept" is enough to create a good character and "roleplay well". It started with the Tiefling Druid. It can also be a Half Orc Paladin. The argument is that, in a vacuum, just creating a Half Orc Paladin doesn't automatically make for an interesting or "original" character concept, specially if the fact the dude is a Half Orc is completely ignored.
So, there is nothing wrong with playing any race and just treating it as a human with different stats, what's wrong is doing it and then claim you're "trying to do an interesting concept while the damn min-maxers in your table are all going for the best class/race combinations". That's the gist of it.

Ionathus

2022-07-05, 01:56 PM

Where "PCs are exceptional" should be more considered is in the raw numbers: if a PC has a +18 to stealth in 5e - doable at surprisingly low level if you work for it - that is the PC being exceptional, not a sign that you need to give passive perceptions of 28 to everything. That PC should be almost impossible for enemies to discover when he's hiding. Because he is exceptional.

Yes, absolutely.

I have watched the gears turn in a fresh DM's mind as they realized how strong the rogue's Stealth expertise was...and knee-jerk buffed all the enemy perceptions to compensate. That is not the answer. Let players be good at the stuff they've invested in. If you want to introduce challenge, the key isn't to nullify expertise or remove obstacles that run off those powerful abilities; the key is to add other challenges into those obstacles, so the rogue can still look good without one-shotting the encounter.

Boci

2022-07-05, 02:10 PM

The specific point here is: even if they are of different cultures, they still are Elves. They have some stuff that makes them completely different from other races (namely, they live longer and they don't sleep). This means that, even if they are from different countries altogether, they'll still be different from Humans, and they'll still have some common points in between them. It's really hard to correlate this to the real world, because as much as there are different races and cultures and nations with differences in between Humans, we are all, well, Human, so we kinda take all our similarities for granted. If you notice, it doesn't matter the civilization/nation/culture/whatever, we all have a few points in common: we settle near water sources, we dispose of our dead, we try to have shelters with soft spots to sleep, we tend to organize in hierarchies with a centralized leadership, we have a certain outlook of life with the tendency to find solace in an "afterlife" or the possibility of reincarnation to contend with our arguably short life spam. If there were a different sencient specias dividing the planet with us, and they had somewhat different needs/biology, like a race that doesn't sleep, or that lives 5 times the average Human lifespan, or that is alergic to water, even if those guys had numerous different countries and cultures (and even skin tones making them kill each other from time to time), they'd have something in common with them that would be somewhat different from us. That's what people mean when they talk about the "elvishness" or the "dwarfiness".

See I read that and think, "Sounds cool for a book, doesn't feel like it will be relevant for most groups, even ones that roleplay". For example elves living 5 times longer isn't terrible relevant to an individual character. What exactly are they going to do, walk away from the adventure because they have too many years to lose compared to a human? How will they act different. Almost every example given so far has either been "eh, might make a good footnote" or "eh, like won't come up". "An elf raised by dwarves would prefer stronger drink than elves normally would", "The tiefling learned to duck so as not to bump his head so often, growing up in a dwarven city". Cool detail, but nothing substantial to the character.

See, what sparked all this discussion that derailed the thread was that some people think that "creating a non stereotypical character concept" is enough to create a good character and "roleplay well".

I don't think anyone ever claimed that in this thread though. Who in this thread thinks that?

Slipjig

2022-07-05, 02:43 PM

{scrubbed} I suspect the "creative" aspect mentioned might be like my first game as a DM, where the monk thought with the slippers of spider climbing he asked to start the game with when I let everyone have a magic item for flavor, and he decided to run along the ceiling of every dungeon they walked into and use the full length of his quarterstaff to bonk skeletons on the head from a safe distance.

I'm not sure why this is a problem, that is both very creative and very entertaining. And if the player continues employing that tactic after it stops being funny, just have every ceiling be either 10' or more than 20' up.

Witty Username

2022-07-05, 02:44 PM

AL is probably part of it. Another part of why rolling never pings me as the 5e Default is because I rarely come across a table brave enough to actually roll 4d6 six times and accept it. It's always seems to come with home-ruled safety nets like "...and re-roll any 1s" or "...roll twice and pick the better array" or "...and you can use any array rolled at the table", etc.
I have rarely encountered a table brave enough to use standard array, most use point by or use a modified array with higher numbers.

That an the rules as I recall allow for infinite rerolls anyway, so most houserules of kind are mostly a time saving measures.

Boci

2022-07-05, 02:50 PM

I'm not sure why this is a problem, that is both very creative and very entertaining. And if the player continues employing that tactic after it stops being funny, just have every ceiling be either 10' or more than 20' up.

They did do that, as outlined in a later post:

Well, that sounds fine, but when I told him I was going to be making the ceilings in the dungeons just a little taller so he wouldn't take it badly mid session and understand why I was doing it, his reaction was, literally, "I guess I'll just sell them then," referring to the slippers.

And they also revealed that:

This person also likes jokes and rolling slight of hand to prank or steal potions from the party "I was gonna give them back anyway", and every time a merchant had some kind of ring or something he'd refuse to buy it unless the merchant told him what it does or wore it themselves. He never wanted to be pranked, EVER, one time I even managed a small joke and he didn't seem amused at all, and got to be even more of a stickler about not wearing it unless he knew exactly what it does.

So really the player just sounds toxic and awful.

I also pointed out this tactic doesn't work by raw against enemies with 5ft reach, because quarterstaff isn't a reach weapon, but that's beside the primary point.

Supermouse

2022-07-05, 03:38 PM

I don't think anyone ever claimed that in this thread though. Who in this thread thinks that?

Check the first posts in the thread. Most notably the cheese-something dude.

Boci

2022-07-05, 03:48 PM

Check the first posts in the thread. Most notably the cheese-something dude.

I think you may have misunderstood what Cheesegear said if that was your take away from their post. Specifically:

A Tiefling that is adopted by Dwarves, IMO, roleplays differently to a Dwarf born to Dwarves. Hell (pun unitended), why was the Tiefling adopted in the first place could have significant ramifications on roleplaying.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with what they say, but they aren't saying "creating a non stereotypical character concept is enough to create a good character and roleplay well".

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-05, 05:14 PM

I have rarely encountered a table brave enough to use standard array, most use point by or use a modified array with higher numbers.

That an the rules as I recall allow for infinite rerolls anyway, so most houserules of kind are mostly a time saving measures.

Whenever I play with brand-new people, I generally push for standard array. If not standard array, we do some form of rolling. I happen to dislike point-buy for...mostly idiosyncratic personal reasons.

But then again, I've had lots of groups where people chose to play sub-optimal characters (especially related to racial choices) and were just fine. Except for the one dude who thought that a
1) halfling (and not even one with STR/WIS bonuses)
2) cleric 1, Barbarian 4
3) who never cast spells
4) or used Reckless Attack
5) and tried to attack with a greataxe (and refused offers of switching out to a versatile weapon that wasn't heavy for free)
6) and didn't actually put significant ability scores into STR (IIRC it was 12)
was a good idea and refused to be dissuaded. Pro tip--it is possible (although difficult) to fall below the system expectations. That's one way. Individual pieces can work, but the totality? No.

Pex

2022-07-05, 05:41 PM

Where "PCs are exceptional" should be more considered is in the raw numbers: if a PC has a +18 to stealth in 5e - doable at surprisingly low level if you work for it - that is the PC being exceptional, not a sign that you need to give passive perceptions of 28 to everything. That PC should be almost impossible for enemies to discover when he's hiding. Because he is exceptional.

I agree unfortunately too many DMs can't accept that. There must be a risk of failure at all times. PCs aren't allowed to be just that good to autosucceed. There is fun in challenge, but there is also fun in reaching a point where some Thing is not challenging anymore, and the player gets to enjoy the fruits of labor of achieving it. The player isn't autosucceeding over everything. He's autosucceeding in this one particular thing and that is what's Cool for the player. DMs need to learn to let the player be that good.

Dr.Samurai

2022-07-05, 05:49 PM

So the big issue comes in when you assume that the median encounter is CR = level + X (X >= 0). That is the distortion that makes all the theorycraft people do diverge strongly from the system expectations.
Makes sense.

I agree with basically all of this. Sure, you might notice a difference. But it's not gamebreaking.
To clarify, I wasn't suggesting that it was game-breaking.

Rather, my preference is for a less swingy game. I want to be really good when things are stacked in my favor, but still good when they're stacked against me. I don't want to pray to the RNG that I roll at least above an 11 or something so that I can land my attack, which may have riders attached to it, etc.

I much prefer a more consistent experience. So if it is true that Bounded Accuracy allows you to play through with a +2 attack modifier, but that means that your chances to hit are generally 50/50, I don't think I'd like that playstyle. My position assumes it isn't game-breaking, I just wouldn't like it.

Boci

2022-07-05, 06:01 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-05, 06:18 PM

To clarify, I wasn't suggesting that it was game-breaking.

Rather, my preference is for a less swingy game. I want to be really good when things are stacked in my favor, but still good when they're stacked against me. I don't want to pray to the RNG that I roll at least above an 11 or something so that I can land my attack, which may have riders attached to it, etc.

I much prefer a more consistent experience. So if it is true that Bounded Accuracy allows you to play through with a +2 attack modifier, but that means that your chances to hit are generally 50/50, I don't think I'd like that playstyle. My position assumes it isn't game-breaking, I just wouldn't like it.

Sure. Liking hitting more/missing less is natural. And I do try to put my biggest modifier into my primary stat and boost it regularly (including capping it out). But as far as game design and system expectations are concerned, it's a small effect. Washed out totally by things like
* cover
* advantage
* disadvantage
* Magic Resistance (etc)
* magic weapons/armor
* etc

That is, in principle there's this nice effect you can see. But in practice, the noise is so high anyway (the roll-to-roll variance in success probability, here, so effectively second-order noise) that it ends up getting washed out. But as humans, we tend to remember the failures way more than the successes and feel worse about them. "If only I'd had another +1..."

Amechra

2022-07-05, 06:30 PM

I mean, all Dwarves are identical because they're all actually all clones of the same 30-something civil engineer. The machine keeps pumping them out, and no-one knows how to turn it off.

More seriously, elves are actually a really weird example to pick, because they literally need half the sleep that everyone else does. An elf has four extra hours every day for extra work or leisure — that's the kind of thing that would have a massive impact on a society. Like, in a world where humans worked 40-hour weeks, an elf that worked 68 hours a week would have the same amount of free time.

Boci

2022-07-05, 06:32 PM

More seriously, elves are actually a really weird example to pick, because they literally need half the sleep that everyone else does. An elf has four extra hours every day for extra work or leisure — that's the kind of thing that would have a massive impact on a society. Like, in a world where humans worked 40-hour weeks, an elf that worked 68 hours a week would have the same amount of free time.

But that's the point, that's a societal thing. A player character is a specific individual, who is sharing the spotlight with 3 others, give or take. So yes, what in world building would have massive implications, for roleplaying a PC becomes in most cases, "I can have a hobby ready / journalist whilst we're busy adventuring," because there just isn't the time, or will, to flesh it out any more.

Pex

2022-07-05, 09:01 PM

I remember when I player of mine rolled a 2 on a not critical but potentially important diplomacy roll (this was back in 3.5), and was surprised when I said it passed. To their credit they had invested a non-trivial amount of resources to boost the check, and never tried to cheese the skill, only using it when appropriate. If I had wanted to make them not succeed on a 2 I would have needed to ban some of the bonuses they acquired, but they were totally expecting me to say it failed anyway. Oh and the reason they were still rolling despite the high modifier is because the game used crit fumbles for attacks and skills. Hey don't look at me, they asked for that houserule. Among many, many others.

I get that in 5E as a DM and fellow player in other games. Player only hits AC 13 and thinks he misses but is surprised he hits. Gets an 11 on a skill check, surprised he succeeds. Even happens with players who have played for years. They don't understand not every skill DC is 20. Not every AC is 21. It's not always about their previous DMs. They see a low number and think it fails by default.

Having more experience as a DM I'm still having a 16 in my prime at 1st level after racial modifier, but I'm not as bothered I have to get over it when others have a 15 as I used to be. However, I will be concerned if they never increase it by 8th level. ASI, half-feat, whichever, but improve it. If they multiclass before 4th level, fine, but that means their first ASI when it happens should improve it. The bad guys are improving their respective prime and proficiency. Once 9th level happens math will matter a lot if they don't keep up. I'm more comfortable having an 18 by then, but if they don't have at least 16 they will be less effective than they think they would be.

OldTrees1

2022-07-05, 09:22 PM

Rather, my preference is for a less swingy game. I want to be really good when things are stacked in my favor, but still good when they're stacked against me. I don't want to pray to the RNG that I roll at least above an 11 or something so that I can land my attack, which may have riders attached to it, etc.

I much prefer a more consistent experience. So if it is true that Bounded Accuracy allows you to play through with a +2 attack modifier, but that means that your chances to hit are generally 50/50, I don't think I'd like that playstyle. My position assumes it isn't game-breaking, I just wouldn't like it.

Remember this "fundamental math (https://rpgbot.net/dnd5/characters/fundamental_math/)" link? Here is the table when corrected to 5E's actual assumptions.

Party Level
Typical CR
Ability Mod
Proficiency
Total
AC
Hit %

10.52241360%
212241360%
312241360%
422241360%
522351365%
632351365%
732351365%
842351460%
942461465%
1052461560%
1152461560%
1262461560%
1362571565%
1472571565%
1572571565%
1682571660%
1782681665%
1892681665%
1992681665%
20102681760%

As you gain levels the range of CRs you face increases. Typical CR captures the fact that the average CR you face will grow much slower than your level.

So, how would a consistent ~62.5% chance to hit with a 14-15 primary score sound to you?

You can have a higher score. You can increase your score. However bounded accuracy was designed so the gamedevs could assume you did not increase your score.

Here it is from a designer's mouth (courtesy of ProsecutorGodot's quote):

Bounded accuracy actually doesn't assume any increases to the players ability modifiers, scheduled or otherwise.

Here's an excerpt from a quote by Rodney Thompson, one of the designers of 5e.

The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game that the player’s attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster’s hit points
...
This extends beyond simple attacks and damage. We also make the same assumptions about character ability modifiers and skill bonuses.

Dr.Samurai

2022-07-05, 09:40 PM

@Oldtrees: Thank you, that is exactly what I was going to do!

Although I've managed to injure myself at work and get put in a sling since my last post lol.

I like 62% over 50% for sure. Time to see what can be done with point buy under different assumptions.

OldTrees1

2022-07-05, 09:49 PM

@Oldtrees: Thank you, that is exactly what I was going to do!
Glad to be of help.

Although I've managed to injure myself at work and get put in a sling since my last post lol.
Ouch. May your recovery be rapid.

False God

2022-07-06, 12:29 AM

I agree unfortunately too many DMs can't accept that. There must be a risk of failure at all times. PCs aren't allowed to be just that good to autosucceed. There is fun in challenge, but there is also fun in reaching a point where some Thing is not challenging anymore, and the player gets to enjoy the fruits of labor of achieving it. The player isn't autosucceeding over everything. He's autosucceeding in this one particular thing and that is what's Cool for the player. DMs need to learn to let the player be that good.

This is, again to circle back to the OP, part of why I've moved away from D&D.

At some point, you'll always succeed. And there's nothing wrong with that IMO. But there seems to be a low tolerance for it among the D&D community, both among players and DMs. DMs that insist there should always be a roll, even when you're 10 points over the DC by default, and players who demand that they should always be given a chance, even when it is impossible for them to succeed. There seems to be a high fixation on the extremes of success and failure. That Nat 20 that saved the day, that Nat 1 that ruined everything.

Although the game is clearly designed for niche-protection and niche-building, there seems to be a strong demand that everyone be able to participate in everything all the time. Which to me is weird, because it feels like the game is clearly saying "Everyone should have their own special area."

But many more story-centric systems (and their players) don't have any issue with me "giving away" the answer to the player with ridiculous stats or telling a player their character is just unable to participate (for whatever reason) in this one given task/event. That seems to make sense to these folks. Really strong guys don't have to make checks to bust down doors, busting down doors is their specialty. Really smart guys don't have to make checks if they've read that book, because reading books is what they do. And those elements of characters are supported by role-play (which I've mentioned elsewhere D&D has a very low requirement for).

Cheesegear

2022-07-06, 01:49 AM

See, what sparked all this discussion that derailed the thread was that some people think that "creating a non stereotypical character concept" is enough to create a good character and "roleplay well".

No. This is what derailed the topic:

Me; The fact that people think a 16 in a primary stat is mandatory to play a class, stifles creativity, and as such there is no reason, ever, to play a Tiefling Druid. That is, power-gaming trumps creativity to a lot of people, and that's upsetting to me. That is, playing a Tiefling Druid is the opposite of power-gaming, and opens up several creative things you can do with your character.

Response; What's mechanically creative about playing a character that sucks? Couldn't you play a Human or Hill Dwarf, get that bonus to WIS, and then do whatever you were going to do, anyway?

Me; ...No, Dwarves and Tieflings are not the same. But I wasn't talking about playing a character that sucks...We're going to have to define what we mean when we talk about 'creativity', and we're really gonna have to define what 'mechanically creative' even means...Because that's not what I'm talking about. But if that's the conversation we're going to have, I need to know exactly what's being talked about (since the OP is very vague).

Creating a non-stereotypical character concept is an opportunity to roleplay well, and be creative. Sure. I'll use your words. I can agree with that.
However, to a power-gamer, playing a non-stereotypical character concept is anathema, and as such Half-Orc Bards can't exist. Half-Orc Wizards can't exist.
Why not? What is the reason you can't play a Half-Orc Wizard? Is it because they don't have 16 Int at Level 1? If that's why you wont play a Half-Orc Wizard, you've proven my point.

...Then Tasha's comes along, says Race any Humanoid Species is just a cool hat you can wear sometimes, and that's the end of it.

I have Darkvision, a Feat, 16 Int, and I look like a Half-Orc. I am a Half-Orc, even though there's actually a real mechanic in the game that says I'm not.

Or you have someone say something...Wrong; My Tiefling was adopted by Dwarves, so therefore is a Dwarf. My non-stereotypical character is actually very stereotypical; I'm just red and have a tail...But that shouldn't ever come up because I'm actually a Dwarf, don't you know, so there's no problem.

Boci

2022-07-06, 04:18 AM

Or you have someone say something...Wrong; My Tiefling was adopted by Dwarves, so therefore is a Dwarf. My non-stereotypical character is actually very stereotypical; I'm just red and have a tail...But that shouldn't ever come up because I'm actually a Dwarf, don't you know, so there's no problem.

But how should it "come up" that your character is red and has a tail? Because it sounds an awful lot like you're saying its a great opportunity to have your character face discrimination and casual racism. Which can be realistic and fun, but not every group and player wants to do that. Other answers I've gotten on this are "Growing up they would bumped their head a lot and may have found it hard to find products to maintain the horns". These are interesting foot notes, but nothing substantial, and even groups that RP may not delve into that detail.

So assuming the player or group makes the valid choice to not include racism or discrimination in the game, how would the tiefling's red skin and tail "come up" in ways that give meaningful opportunities to roleplay rather than just be clever footnotes in their backstory that potentially never come up during an actual session?

Cheesegear

2022-07-06, 04:46 AM

But how should it "come up" that your character is red and has a tail?

However you make it.

It you don't make it come up; If your characters' species and background does not impact how your character roleplays, then once again, I really, really, really need you to define 'being creative' because I don't think we're on the same page.

Boci

2022-07-06, 05:03 AM

However you make it.

It you don't make it come up; If your characters' species and background does not impact how your character roleplays, then once again, I really, really, really need you to define 'being creative' because I don't think we're on the same page.

Yeah, I believe characters are fully realised individuals, and as such sometimes their race will play a minimal role in their character, as other factors of their personality are more relevant. There's also the practical consideration of D&D being a group game played with others, often with a plot about getting riches or saving the world. So what could make for compelling characterisation in a novel might not be feasible to explore in your D&D game.

None of this I believe is antithetical to "being creative". To me part of being creative is knowing when to lean into an aspect of your character, and when you focus somewhere else instead.

Rynjin

2022-07-06, 05:14 AM

Lord Raziere

2022-07-06, 06:11 AM

Yeah, I believe characters are fully realised individuals, and as such sometimes their race will play a minimal role in their character, as other factors of their personality are more relevant. There's also the practical consideration of D&D being a group game played with others, often with a plot about getting riches or saving the world. So what could make for compelling characterisation in a novel might not be feasible to explore in your D&D game.

None of this I believe is antithetical to "being creative". To me part of being creative is knowing when to lean into an aspect of your character, and when you focus somewhere else instead.

Indeed.

Not every story/game/whatever focuses on the same things. Artemis Fowl makes Mulch Diggums being a dwarf incredibly important because of the strange things he can do with his biology to commit crime that is useful for both the LEPrecon and Artemis himself. but this is a bit modern and scientific for non-urban fantasy.

Lord of the Rings makes being a dwarf or elf or hobbit or human is not actually all that important in the grand scheme of things, because nothing Gimli, Legolas does really matters except in a marginal "they were there and helped" kind of sense and could've been replaced by two badass humans, while being a hobbit isn't actually that important either-anyone humble and not desiring of power enough could've gotten the ring that far, because biology really has nothing to do with that, culture might have a hand in helping though, how big of one? eh, not as big you might think, as every culture has its share of good people and jerks. if Bilbo gave the Ring to one of his more jerkish and petty cousins I doubt that would've ended well, but there might've been a humble human farmer capable of resisting it for just as long, we'll never really know.

you can attempt to make races important without the sciencey biology changes, but those tend to fall into the trap of waxing poetic about romantic notions of that races virtuous and noble nature, or how only "they" could've done this, without really much substance much like how some stories fall into the trap of waxing poetic about how humanity is special in some vague romantic way when there is really no reason to draw the connection or talk about it because whether that race is like that really has nothing to do with the situation at all. and it just feels weird to say "you are special because you were born an X and were raised to have X virtues like all X's and you demonstrated how your a paragon of being an X, as an example to all X's to live up to" as if any Y's can't also take inspiration from your example or learn to do the things you did, or any Z's couldn't have been there and did just as well in a different way.

now the other direction is to change the race biology in a more magical and mystical way. like say, the Parshendi from Stormlight Archive: their biology is important because its basically magic where they change to different forms for different roles in society, much of everything they say is in song and rhythm to communicate emotion and such, its implied they can communicate telepathically, and all these reasons combine to make people suspicious of the Parshendi and thus one good one fighting on their side, their slaveform has been used for slave labor and thus when they get out of dull form they have little idea of how to form a society making them susceptible to people who want to use them as weapons, a whole bunch of things that make the Parshendi-human conflict believable even if there weren't gods interfering in the matter.

the problem is, I'm not sure if something much like the Parshendi would be all the relevant to a DnD party. you can drop any race from any fantasy setting into DnD and it'd work, but they'd all face the same problem: most likely all the other players are playing something different, so the race thing will probably never be a shared identity. a Parshendi would see their other party members as rhythm-less, and would probably already be in a form built for fighting if they are adventuring, so its questionable how much they'd need armor but they'd still need a weapon. they'd just be that weird person who speaks rhythmically even though they're not a bard and has armor for skin. the strangeness that makes them interesting only works in the context of other Parshendi, their culture.

so if even something as interesting and well-written as the Parshendi would have problems being portrayed as their race being important in a DnD party, perhaps the problem is that if you want someone's culture and background to be important, maybe don't play a campaign where you join four random people outside the context of that culture and background, who are also outside the context of their culture and backgrounds. you want being this or that race/culture to be important? make it the race/culture everyone plays and put them all in the context of being that one race and dealing with that cultures problems, because outside the context of the culture, the background and such really doesn't matter that much.

Cheesegear

2022-07-06, 07:57 AM

Yeah, I believe characters are fully realised individuals, and as such sometimes their race will play a minimal role in their character

Okay. But I feel as though you've picked out the part of my argument that you can argue against, whilst ignoring my actual point. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Tiefling Druids don't get played.
Half-Orc Wizards don't get played.
Mountain Dwarf Bards don't get played.

The reason isn't because those characters don't have stories to tell. The counter to my argument is not:

'Dwarves are better mechanically so just play a Dwarf because roleplaying is a non-factor, so why would you even want to play a Tiefling?'

If that is your counter, then we are not on the same page and never will be, because that counter is actually proving my point, not disproving it.

Boci

2022-07-06, 08:19 AM

Okay. But I feel as though you've picked out the part of my argument that you can argue against, whilst ignoring my actual point. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Tiefling Druids don't get played.
Half-Orc Wizards don't get played.
Mountain Dwarf Bards don't get played.

They do in my groups/social circles. Not as often more classic combinations, but my first ever character was a high-elf / bard, and I've played a drow / druid, and when I DMed one of my friends went with a half-orc / caster of some sort, might have also been a druid (admittedly this might have been after I houseruled half-orcs get +2 to strength and +1 floating to mimic half-elves, but the player wouldn't have known that was a houserule before so this still counts). They also played a non-varient tiefling fighter in another game they're in.

However, not all of these characters were made inherently interesting by the non-standard choice of race and class. Somewhere, my drow / druid was, but the high-elf bard wasn't really. Its not that I didn't roleplay him, but the bard aspect of his character and my friendship with the party's cleric definitely contributed more.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-06, 09:57 AM

They do in my groups/social circles. Not as often more classic combinations, but my first ever character was a high-elf / bard, and I've played a drow / druid, and when I DMed one of my friends went with a half-orc / caster of some sort, might have also been a druid (admittedly this might have been after I houseruled half-orcs get +2 to strength and +1 floating to mimic half-elves, but the player wouldn't have known that was a houserule before so this still counts). They also played a non-varient tiefling fighter in another game they're in.

However, not all of these characters were made inherently interesting by the non-standard choice of race and class. Somewhere, my drow / druid was, but the high-elf bard wasn't really. Its not that I didn't roleplay him, but the bard aspect of his character and my friendship with the party's cleric definitely contributed more.

Very much agree. I've seen
* a number of tiefling druids
* dwarven <X>, where <X> is just about anything
* I have a tabaxi wizard in my current group
* etc.

It's only when you are pushing the difficulty frontier (usually a case where combat is all that matters and you lean hard into one BIG encounter per rest and/or optimize or die) that the difference between starting with a +2, +3, or +4 matters. And that's usually only because it frees up ASIs for feats.

I don't really do fantasy racism. But I do have people be more visible because of unusual (for the area) race choices. The tiefling in my group? He's a target for one of the significant adversary groups (a devil cult) because the way you get tieflings is by having kids under devil influence. In this case, his mom was picked for a "ritual" to try to breed half-devils (in the obvious way). His dad saved her, but the ritual was half-complete and the devil influence was still strong. Hence...human mom & dad, tiefling kid. Some areas, being a genasi means you get treated as a "elements-blessed" child and are expected to fill a religious role. In one play area, "elf" isn't a valid choice. Because elves are super rare in that area (although that's changing) due to having retreated en masse a couple thousand years or so ago. And there's lingering racial legends of the "evil elves". Not hostile, just notable. The party wizard (a tabaxi) is, well, very notable because tabaxi are rare there and even more rarely wizards (who are disliked for setting reasons). Which is fun when he's trying to fly under the radar so his mom doesn't know where he is. Etc.

Psyren

2022-07-06, 10:41 AM

...Then Tasha's comes along, says Race any Humanoid Species is just a cool hat you can wear sometimes, and that's the end of it.

This conclusion requires ignoring literally every racial trait that isn't the ASI. It just doesn't make sense. The races are more diverse, varied and competitive than they've ever been, save the two that get a bonus feat.

I agree unfortunately too many DMs can't accept that. There must be a risk of failure at all times. PCs aren't allowed to be just that good to autosucceed. There is fun in challenge, but there is also fun in reaching a point where some Thing is not challenging anymore, and the player gets to enjoy the fruits of labor of achieving it. The player isn't autosucceeding over everything. He's autosucceeding in this one particular thing and that is what's Cool for the player. DMs need to learn to let the player be that good.

I agree, but this kind of bad DMing is not really D&D's fault. I wouldn't say no to better guidance at crafting ability check challenges however.

Dork_Forge

2022-07-06, 12:53 PM

This conclusion requires ignoring literally every racial trait that isn't the ASI. It just doesn't make sense. The races are more diverse, varied and competitive than they've ever been, save the two that get a bonus feat.

If you look at Tasha's as a turning point, rather than the only change, this isn't really true. New races that come out are largely stripped of their flavour, with most being the same height, weight and living as long as a human.

There was also the standardisation of 30 ft movement speeds, 1d6 natural weapons, and everyone getting flexible ASIs.

The races lost a large amount of things that separated them previously, to the point where their features are the only things left, and even those were made similar to some degree as shown above.

You don't have to like this, you don't have to take this as 'all races are exactly the same now' but it's hard to argue that they didn't become a lot more similar in many ways.

Boci

2022-07-06, 01:08 PM

x3n0n

2022-07-06, 01:15 PM

I haven't kept up with new races, what ones with this formula of 30ft movement, 1d6 nat attack and flexible ASIs? I know strixhaven introduced owlmen, I could see them having 1d6 talons.

All of the MotM remakes of earlier (mostly Volo's and MToF) races.

(That is, if it had a sub-30 speed, it has a 30 speed. If it had a natural weapon that could be used for unarmed strikes, it now deals 1d6. If it had a recharges-on-short-rest ability, it recharges prof-bonus times per long rest. If it healed/damaged based on character level, it now does so based on one of various formulas related to prof-bonus. All races grant your choice of +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 initial ability score modifiers spread as you choose.)

Similar for the other recent races like the ones from the Ravenloft book.

Dork_Forge

2022-07-06, 01:15 PM

I haven't kept up with new races, what ones with this formula of 30ft movement, 1d6 nat attack and flexible ASIs? I know strixhaven introduced owlmen, I could see them having 1d6 talons.

Monsters of the Multiverse updated a lot of races to bring them in line with that design ethos. Centaurs now have 1d6 hooves, Duergar and Deep Gnomes have 30ft movement etc.

Psyren

2022-07-06, 01:18 PM

If you look at Tasha's as a turning point, rather than the only change, this isn't really true. New races that come out are largely stripped of their flavour, with most being the same height, weight and living as long as a human.

There was also the standardisation of 30 ft movement speeds, 1d6 natural weapons, and everyone getting flexible ASIs.

I don't view a single one of these old paradigms as worth keeping. Different move speeds are just one more annoyance for new players and DMs to track that doesn't do anything for balance, especially at high tiers when everyone has a speed boost or new movement mode of some kind anyway. Height, weight and lifespan are ribbons in the vast majority of games. Racial natural weapons becoming unarmed strikes streamlined the rules in a very good way. And I'm definitely not going down the Fixed ASI rabbit hole yet again, this thread is already heading towards that particular s-bend.

You don't have to like this, you don't have to take this as 'all races are exactly the same now' but it's hard to argue that they didn't become a lot more similar in many ways.

It's hard to argue they're not still very different than one another. If Shadar-Kai and Bugbears had the exact same height, weight, lifespan, speed, ASIs, and unarmed strikes they would still be vastly different in play, and you know it.

Dork_Forge

2022-07-06, 01:27 PM

I don't view a single one of these old paradigms as worth keeping. Different move speeds are just one more annoyance for new players and DMs to track that doesn't do anything for balance, especially at high tiers when everyone has a speed boost or new movement mode of some kind anyway. Height, weight and lifespan are ribbons in the vast majority of games. Racial natural weapons becoming unarmed strikes streamlined the rules in a very good way. And I'm definitely not going down the Fixed ASI rabbit hole yet again, this thread is already heading towards that particular s-bend.

Players don't automatically have speed boosts and new modes of movement at higher levels, my two long term games are up to levels 10 and 14 currently and this isn't true for either of them. Actually, there's been no movement change to either that wasn't applicable at much lower levels.

The natural weapons thing wasn't about them being unarmed strikes, it was about the damage die homogenising.

It's also not the point that height, weight, lifespan info is ribbons, that was a large part of the flavour of those races that is now gone.

It's hard to argue they're not still very different than one another. If Shadar-Kai and Bugbears had the exact same height, weight, lifespan, speed, ASIs, and unarmed strikes they would still be vastly different in play, and you know it.

Why are you choosing to ignore/disregard the actual claim that they got a lot more similar? Can you actually engage with that instead of sidestepping it?

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-06, 01:29 PM

Height, weight and lifespan are ribbons in the vast majority of games.

Is mechanical power the only thing that matters? Height, weight, and lifespan are critically important to worldbuilding. And if you way that PCs are exceptional in that...then you're saying that the real race of all PCs is "PC". Because a 6'11" halfling or a 2'5" goliath aren't halflings or goliaths.

Personally, mechanics of races matter only when they reflect some fundamental truth about the race in the setting. So eliding all of the things that could be different means you might as well just have one race with a buffet of features to pick from. Which is sucky for coherent worlds.

Segev

2022-07-06, 01:32 PM

I don't view a single one of these old paradigms as worth keeping. Different move speeds are just one more annoyance for new players and DMs to track that doesn't do anything for balance....

This argument can be used for literally all racial and class features. That isn't to say it isn't a consideration, but it doesn't back up "it's not worth keeping" as well as you seem to believe it does. You can fail to view any number of things as "not worth keeping," but you need more than "I don't care about them, personally," and "they're just one more annoyance for new players and DMs to track" to back it up as anything other than your personal taste and preference, because, again, ALL rules are "just one more annoyance...to track."

It'd make things a lot simpler if everybody played a Dwarf Champion Fighter. That wouldn't make the game better, though, nor justify throwing out everything else. Even if you (generic you) happen to think dwarf champion fighters are the only paradigm worth keeping.

Anymage

2022-07-06, 01:39 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-06, 02:06 PM

Since we're relitigating Tasha's yet again, I'll just remind people a basic point. So long as there are any mechanical differences between races an optimization meta will exist. We've seen how enacting floating ASIs didn't abolish the meta so much as shift it. (Custom Lineage existing doesn't help the case either.) Your options are to accept this, to only play with people who don't give a toss about optimization, to randomize race/class selection to enforce variety, or to entirely remove any mechanical impact of race.

I'm not going to step into the "my character is an exceptional individual and I should be free to build/play them however I like" vs. "if everybody just acts like humans in funny hats why do we need more than just humans" because that's all a question of taste. But when the followup question is what we should do about things it's worth asking what your answers would be.

Fair bit of an excluded middle here. My groups do care at least non-trivial amounts about optimization AND don't lean into the racial-optimization meta. Even with Tasha's excluded. Because there are many other factors that also matter. Racial metas form when optimization-for-power is the only, or only significant consideration or when people believe that the differences are larger than they actually are.

As I've pointed out, the difference between having a +0 racial mod in your prime stat or a +2 is actually pretty trivial outside the most extreme cases. The perception of difference is way larger than the real difference. And the statistical arguments are premised on extrapolations to large numbers (to reduce the variance) which don't actually hold in real play.

Boci

2022-07-06, 02:28 PM

Fair bit of an excluded middle here. My groups do care at least non-trivial amounts about optimization AND don't lean into the racial-optimization meta. Even with Tasha's excluded. Because there are many other factors that also matter. Racial metas form when optimization-for-power is the only, or only significant consideration or when people believe that the differences are larger than they actually are.

Yeah, optimization isn't all or nothing. If it were, you couldn't optimize a fire mage character, because that's not the best way to play a mage.

Jervis

2022-07-06, 02:31 PM

Yeah, optimization isn't all or nothing. If it were, you couldn't optimize a fire mage character, because that's not the best way to play a mage.

To be fair Fire Mage is kind of hard to optimize in 5e. You get one spell of every level average and one feat that lets you bypass resistance. It’s also one of the damage types with the most immunities attached. Against typical end of campaign threats like demons and devils is put it as being almost as bad as poison

Psyren

2022-07-06, 02:43 PM

Why are you choosing to ignore/disregard the actual claim that they got a lot more similar? Can you actually engage with that instead of sidestepping it?

I did, by disagreeing with it. Your definition of "races got a lot more similar" and mine don't match, at all. Can you accept that?

Is mechanical power the only thing that matters? Height, weight, and lifespan are critically important to worldbuilding. And if you way that PCs are exceptional in that...then you're saying that the real race of all PCs is "PC". Because a 6'11" halfling or a 2'5" goliath aren't halflings or goliaths.

Of course races in different size categories should be different sizes :smallconfused:

This argument can be used for literally all racial and class features. That isn't to say it isn't a consideration, but it doesn't back up "it's not worth keeping" as well as you seem to believe it does. You can fail to view any number of things as "not worth keeping," but you need more than "I don't care about them, personally," and "they're just one more annoyance for new players and DMs to track" to back it up as anything other than your personal taste and preference, because, again, ALL rules are "just one more annoyance...to track."

What on earth is enforcing a 25ft move speed for one race adding to the game? Clearly it has nothing to do with their size, because other Small races have 30ft. It's just arbitrary and pointless.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-06, 02:45 PM

Of course races in different size categories should be different sizes :smallconfused:

Except...they're not by the new design. Because they're all Medium creatures. The new gnomes? Medium. Centaurs? Medium. Minotaurs? Medium. Etc. It's very clear that all playable races will be Medium from here out. And a goliath (Medium) is, according to MotM, able to be any darn size it wants, including 2'5".

Psyren

2022-07-06, 02:51 PM

Except...they're not by the new design. Because they're all Medium creatures.

This is false. Have you read the new book? There are multiple Small races, and some that can choose Small or Medium.

Segev

2022-07-06, 02:54 PM

What on earth is enforcing a 25ft move speed for one race adding to the game? Clearly it has nothing to do with their size, because other Small races have 30ft. It's just arbitrary and pointless.

This is at least as much an argument for other small races having their move speeds changed to 25 ft, and requiring any that have 30 ft. to be justified by something more than "it's easier to track."

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-06, 03:06 PM

This is false. Have you read the new book? There are multiple Small races, and some that can choose Small or Medium.

I was misinformed then. But the point about Goliaths still holds--they're Medium...but not restricted by height or weight any more. Which means that you can absolutely have a goliath that is smaller than a halfling. And since even those of the Small category don't have listed heights or weights anymore...you can have a goblin the size of a (previous) goliath. Which is all the same problem.

Basically, Small and Medium just don't mean much any more but only for PC races. NPC goblins are still small in both senses of the word. And now NPC aarokocra and PC aarokocra have different traits entirely.

The new changes reinforce that there is only one PC race, that of "PC". Just with a lot of variants. A 6'11" dwarf? Sure! A 450 lb halfling? Sure! An 700 year old human (without any special magic)? Not a problem. A 900 year old goblin? Yup. Not an issue. And that's something I don't like. It's like the worldbuilding, homogenizing things for the sake of selling more product and "removing limitations" which actually just stifles creativity.

Limitations are good. Limitations are necessary. Limitations and differences allow for coherent settings with interesting differences.

Psyren

2022-07-06, 03:11 PM

I was misinformed then.

You were. Fairies, Goblins, Svirfneblin and Kobolds are all examples of Small races. And Gnomes/Halflings weren't changed at all, because they're core and core hasn't changed.

But the point about Goliaths still holds--they're Medium...but not restricted by height or weight any more. Which means that you can absolutely have a goliath that is smaller than a halfling. And since even those of the Small category don't have listed heights or weights anymore...you can have a goblin the size of a (previous) goliath. Which is all the same problem.

As noted above, last I checked my PHB hasn't gone anywhere, and it says that Medium is approximately 4-8ft tall while Small is 2-4ft. tall. Nothing in MotM erased or errataed that passage.

This is at least as much an argument for other small races having their move speeds changed to 25 ft, and requiring any that have 30 ft. to be justified by something more than "it's easier to track."

Maybe, but they didn't. Again I ask, why is a 25ft move speed important to you? What does it add to the game?

Boci

2022-07-06, 03:14 PM

Maybe, but they didn't. Again I ask, why is a 25ft move speed important to you? What does it add to the game?

To bring them in line with dwarves? You say core hasn't been touched, so dwarves are still 25ft right? Why are duegar faster?

Psyren

2022-07-06, 03:17 PM

To bring them in line with dwarves? You say core hasn't been touched, so dwarves are still 25ft right? Why are duegar faster?

1) Dwarves aren't Small, so that proves it was arbitrary rather than size-related.
2) Core hasn't been touched yet. I expect it will be, and that's good.

Boci

2022-07-06, 03:25 PM

1) Dwarves aren't Small, so that proves it was arbitrary rather than size-related.
2) Core hasn't been touched yet. I expect it will be, and that's good.

Neither are dueger. Its not arbitrary, dwarves have always been short and squat-built for medium creatures, and as such took a speed penalty compared to others. That is not arbitrary. You can argue its a level of realism not needed, but its not arbitrary.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-06, 03:26 PM

As noted above, last I checked my PHB hasn't gone anywhere, and it says that Medium is approximately 4-8ft tall while Small is 2-4ft. tall. Nothing in MotM erased or errataed that passage.

"Approximately" is doing a heck of a lot of work there. And leaves things way less binding and meaningful than before.

Under current (post MotM) guidelines, how big is an average goliath? At most you can say "4-8 ft, with large error bars." Which makes rather a mockery of their very name (the reference is to someone who was supposedly well over 9' tall). And an 8' dwarf? No issue. A 4' goliath? No issue. But only if they're PCs. NPCs are different. Because PC dwarves aren't really dwarf dwarfs, they're PCs.

That said, the previous races weren't exactly stellar either. But I think the direction they're going is more McDonalds/McMansion bland uniformity and less "interesting fantasy." Not entirely uniform, but more uniform. In bad, unnecessary ways.

Boci

2022-07-06, 03:31 PM

"Approximately" is doing a heck of a lot of work there. And leaves things way less binding and meaningful than before.

Under current (post MotM) guidelines, how big is an average goliath?

"Distantly related to giants and infused with the supernatural essence of their ancestors' mountainous home, goliaths stand between 7 and 8 feet tall and have a wide array of skin tones resembling different types of stone."

Segev

2022-07-06, 03:34 PM

Maybe, but they didn't. Again I ask, why is a 25ft move speed important to you? What does it add to the game?

What does anything add to the game? Why is it important that there be anything but humans?

25 ft. isn't that important to me. But if all grains of sand are unimportant, then eventually you don't have a beach when you remove them all.

But more directly, it is one of several things that sets small and medium creatures apart.

Psyren

2022-07-06, 03:36 PM

Neither are dueger. Its not arbitrary, dwarves have always been short and squat-built for medium creatures, and as such took a speed penalty compared to others. That is not arbitrary. You can argue its a level of realism not needed, but its not arbitrary.

Aarakocra are not short and squat-built either, and they had 25ft. move too.

By "arbitrary" I don't mean that they didn't bother to come up with any kind of justification for it (however flimsy) - rather, what I mean is that none of those justifications are so inviolate or integral that they can't be re-examined and changed later, which WotC did.

What does anything add to the game? Why is it important that there be anything but humans?

25 ft. isn't that important to me. But if all grains of sand are unimportant, then eventually you don't have a beach when you remove them all.

How poetic. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be over here laying on the beach.

But more directly, it is one of several things that sets small and medium creatures apart.

As noted, there were multiple Medium creatures with 25ft move prior to MotM, and multiple Small creatures with 30ft.

Dork_Forge

2022-07-06, 03:39 PM

I did, by disagreeing with it. Your definition of "races got a lot more similar" and mine don't match, at all. Can you accept that?

Then what definition are you actually using? Because homogenizing various areas of races to make them the same, is making them more similar.

You don't have to go against your own position of 'they're still sufficiently different with their features' but to disagree that MotM didn't make all races more similar is an odd claim without anything actually explaining that position.

As for the whole speed argument, when the PHB was released a combination of size and speed was clearly used as a balancing point for features and realism. That is being abandoned, whether that is a good thing or a bad thing will obviously never be agreed upon, but it was plainly there.

Psyren

2022-07-06, 03:40 PM

Then what definition are you actually using? Because homogenizing various areas of races to make them the same, is making them more similar.

You removed the "a lot more."

As for the whole speed argument, when the PHB was released a combination of size and speed was clearly used as a balancing point for features and realism. That is being abandoned, whether that is a good thing or a bad thing will obviously never be agreed upon, but it was plainly there.

It was a crappy balance point. Good riddance to it.

Segev

2022-07-06, 03:40 PM

Aarakocra are not short and squat-built either, and they had 25ft. move too. And if you were arguing that aaracockra shouldn't have a 25 ft. movement, I might be persuaded to agree with you. I could justify the 25 ft. movement, but I don't care to. Certainly, it isn't due to size.

How poetic. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be over here laying on the beach.

Sorry, that beach is closed due to aesthetic reasons. I hope it wasn't important to you.

Oh, so is that other one you're planning to go to instead. And that one. In fact, the only vacations available are to these lovely city resort hotels in Dallas, TX. But you can pick one called the "beach package" if you like!

Boci

2022-07-06, 03:41 PM

What does anything add to the game? Why is it important that there be anything but humans?

25 ft. isn't that important to me. But if all grains of sand are unimportant, then eventually you don't have a beach when you remove them all.

I can see Psyren's point, in that 25 speed can feel bad, because its like you're slowing the group down. Assuming you're the only such character, for overland movement you have effectivly slowed everyone else too.

However, I'm not too sure this matters that much. Most DMs I've found can't be bothered to have much happen from such a reduction to OOC speed, and IC the character is just suffering themselves for being slower. The only time it really matters would be pursuing enemies. Which may or may not be a likely occurrence, its highly DM dependant. Do they like using hit and run tactics, do injured monsters sometimes attempt to flee, does the party have reliable lockdown so they don't need to bother with chases...

Interestingly it might go in the opposite direction too. In Eberron, the Swiftstride shifter was 35 speed, +5 when they shifted. Now they're 30, +10 when they shift. So it does look like this 30 speed preferences applies to both ends, potentially.

Psyren

2022-07-06, 03:44 PM

And if you were arguing that aaracockra shouldn't have a 25 ft. movement, I might be persuaded to agree with you. I could justify the 25 ft. movement, but I don't care to. Certainly, it isn't due to size.

They shouldn't, it was changed (they're 30ft. now), and we agree that speed was never dependent on size.

Sorry, that beach is closed due to aesthetic reasons. I hope it wasn't important to you.

The sand in your analogy are differences between races. There's still plenty, ergo, there's still a beach. Enjoy it! :smallcool:

Dork_Forge

2022-07-06, 03:45 PM

You removed the "a lot more."

Entire sections were removed from individual race entries and put under a single boiler plate section.

Various aspects of racial design that didn't fall under those changes were also equalised, ignoring and previous design in the process.

It wasn't a little that changed. In my opinion it was a lot. If the hill you want to die on is that it wasn't 'a lot' instead of just agreeing that the design homogenized races in this way then fine, but you're nitpicking to avoid the point.

It was a crappy balance point. Good riddance to it.

Hard disagree.

I've also never had any players complain about 25 ft, or ever seen anyone even post about not liking it. It was one of the things that was embraced, in my own experience anyway, as something that made those races different.

And to be blunt, if it ever bothered a player, that wanted to play a halfling or gnome regardless, they had plenty of ways of resolving that.

They shouldn't, it was changed (they're 30ft. now), and we agree that speed was never dependent on size.

Size was a determining factor for speed =/= size is the only determining factor for speed.

Aaraokocra had a trade off of having 25ft land speed for their absurdly high fly speed. In game justification? This clearly flying-first race weren't built to move on the ground as well as the average race.

Psyren

2022-07-06, 03:53 PM

Entire sections were removed from individual race entries and put under a single boiler plate section.

Various aspects of racial design that didn't fall under those changes were also equalised, ignoring and previous design in the process.

It wasn't a little that changed. In my opinion it was a lot. If the hill you want to die on is that it wasn't 'a lot' instead of just agreeing that the design homogenized races in this way then fine, but you're nitpicking to avoid the point.

It's not a nitpick at all. A significant amount of fluff was removed, sure, but (a) I agree with their reasons and (b) a significant amount of crunch differences remain. The latter at least is just a fact.

And sure, I'll gladly "die on that hill" if that gets us to the inevitable impasse sooner.

Hard disagree.

I've also never had any players complain about 25 ft, or ever seen anyone even post about not liking it. It was one of the things that was embraced, in my own experience anyway, as something that made those races different.

And to be blunt, if it ever bothered a player, that wanted to play a halfling or gnome regardless, they had plenty of ways of resolving that.

Now they don't have to. And as Boci correctly stated, it makes things like overland movement and chase scenes much easier to adjudicate.

If your players truly found meaning in Small races being 1 square slower, that's completely fine, it should be easy for your table to reinstate.

Jervis

2022-07-06, 04:06 PM

My issue is that most races just have spell Prof times per day, ability prof times or once per day, monks of this race are slightly less bad, or ability to change floating profs around. You have a fly or swim speed sprinkled in once in a while. With a few exceptions where the biology is vastly different like having wings stapled to your back, which people complain about constantly anyway for balance reasons, you could expand the background system to be more than a feature no one uses and two skill profs and mix most non-human races entirely. Every setting must, for mechanical reasons, have a dwarf country, a elf country, a halfling country, etc etc etc. The more races you print in the game with the implication that they’re meant for use in any game the more a setting or GM has to go out of their way to figure out how quirky cow giants fit into it. What i’m saying is that if a race’s main feature could have justifiably been given to a human with a feat, then get rid of the race and make a feat. You could probably cut the amount of races meant for use outside of specific settings in half.

And for the love of Gygax stop making everything “you can cast X spell prof times per day/with a spell slot.” Stop making everything that’s interesting limited use for arbitrary reasons and stop using spells as the solution to everything.

Boci

2022-07-06, 04:11 PM

Every setting must, for mechanical reasons, have a dwarf country, a elf country, a halfling country, etc etc etc.

It doesn't. You just have to have a county not defined primarily by the race that primarily inhabits it. And if too many races it what makes DMs finally realize this, than I want 3 more books full of playable races by the end of this year.

Have they added a dragonborn nation to FR since they became a core race? I didn't notice they did, but perhaps they have, I'm not the most well versed in FR lore, but I somehow doubt they did. And if not dragonborn, then some race printed since won't have its own nation there.

Keltest

2022-07-06, 04:29 PM

Boci

2022-07-06, 04:33 PM

They added a city-state in fact, where a majority of dragonborn in the Realms live.

A city state isn't quite a nation, but fine, we'll call that close enough. However, as noted there in the quote you quoted, I doubt they did that for every other playable race printed.

Jervis

2022-07-06, 04:34 PM

It doesn't. You just have to have a county not defined primarily by the race that primarily inhabits it. And if too many races it what makes DMs finally realize this, than I want 3 more books full of playable races by the end of this year.

Have they added a dragonborn nation to FR since they became a core race? I didn't notice they did, but perhaps they have, I'm not the most well versed in FR lore, but I somehow doubt they did. And if not dragonborn, then some race printed since won't have its own nation there.

As for dragonborn they came from Abir when their nation was teleported there, so yes they do have a nation. Not every species needs a nation populated primarily by that species but realistically they had to come from somewhere and that somewhere probably still has a lot of them. And you need some reason why they’re there. Not going to go too much into it but a world with intelligent species as different as mammal and reptile will have to have a lot of world building on how those two interact. Zootopia is a good example of this where animals need different climates and have different dietary needs, mostly because one group of the population use to eat the other. Does a DM or writer need to explain why the heck Yuan Ti and Gith are in Dragonlance? Does every new setting need to factor in the social impact of elves living hundreds of years or where all the Fey came from?

It's not a nitpick at all. A significant amount of fluff was removed, sure, but (a) I agree with their reasons and (b) a significant amount of crunch differences remain. The latter at least is just a fact.

And sure, I'll gladly "die on that hill" if that gets us to the inevitable impasse sooner.

Now they don't have to. And as Boci correctly stated, it makes things like overland movement and chase scenes much easier to adjudicate.

If your players truly found meaning in Small races being 1 square slower, that's completely fine, it should be easy for your table to reinstate.

The problem with removing the cultural aspect from races is that you both remove a lot of interesting lore and remove those features from existence. Like I was saying before to give a race weapon profs now they need to give them the power to telepathically contact their ancestors. And some of the new fluff is really, really bad. Most Kobold players will tell you that the cowardly pack tactics play-style was, both lorewise and mechanically, the reason they played them. And my boys the hobgoblins got murdered. There’s also the problem where they removed culture related abilities from races without anywhere else or put them. Backgrounds in current 5e just aren’t robust enough for it.

As for move speed, your exact argument could apply to characters with more than 30 ft move speed. Suddenly everyone else is slowing the monk down and that’s making everyone feel bad and making chase scenes hard to run. We have a Tabaxi and a monk in the party so the human fighter is dead weight in overland travel.

As for the fix it yourself point. That’s now how that works. Something being fixable doesn’t make that thing not a valid complaint. You don’t buy a car, see that it doesn’t work, and suddenly stop complaining when the dealer gives you a car repair handbook.

Segev

2022-07-06, 04:34 PM

They shouldn't, it was changed (they're 30ft. now), and we agree that speed was never dependent on size.I made no such statement. What we can agree to, if you're willing, is that size is not the only factor that determines speed.

However, smaller creatures did tend to be slower. Dwarves were short and also not known for speed, hence they also got the speed of a smaller creature. If you named a particularly speedy Small creature, I could see its speed being 30 ft. or even higher, depending HOW speedy it is meant to be.

The sand in your analogy are differences between races. There's still plenty, ergo, there's still a beach. Enjoy it! :smallcool:By the reasoning you've used, however, every single one of the grains of sand can be removed. At what point do you start saying, "woah, woah, we still need some sand, here, or it's not a beach?" And how do you defend keeping THAT grain vs. the ones you've already said, "Eh, good riddance," to, based on the logic you've used to justify getting rid of them?

Jophiel

2022-07-06, 04:36 PM

It doesn't. You just have to have a county not defined primarily by the race that primarily inhabits it. And if too many races it what makes DMs finally realize this, than I want 3 more books full of playable races by the end of this year.
Can't imagine that'll get you the result you want. A core part of world/campaign building to me is deciding which races will inhabit it, not thinking "Man, now I gotta find a place for these ten other guys they just added".

Dork_Forge

2022-07-06, 04:39 PM

It's not a nitpick at all. A significant amount of fluff was removed, sure, but (a) I agree with their reasons and (b) a significant amount of crunch differences remain. The latter at least is just a fact.

A fact that no one, that I can see, is arguing with you, or stating at all.

Now they don't have to. And as Boci correctly stated, it makes things like overland movement and chase scenes much easier to adjudicate.

If your players truly found meaning in Small races being 1 square slower, that's completely fine, it should be easy for your table to reinstate.

There's nothing to adjudicate. The travel rules don't use speed in that way at all, walk speed is reserved for short, energetic bursts of movement, not long-distance travel.

Though, I can see why it would have to be adjudicated, as it seems in your and Boci's cases it has been DM fiat, rather than the actual rules.

As for chases, it doesn't really change that much and I don't find removing something interesting: how are the slower members going to get away? To be better for the game. We won't agree, but 'easier to adjudicate' is not the be all of rules.

I'm not going to engage with the 'your table can change it back' thing you do, it's okay people don't like it, it's okay that you do, and it's okay that everyone voices their opinions here.

Boci

2022-07-06, 04:43 PM

As for dragonborn they came from Abir when their nation was teleported there, so yes they do have a nation. Not every species needs a nation populated primarily by that species but realistically they had to come from somewhere and that somewhere probably still has a lot of them. And you need some reason why they’re there. Not going to go too much into it but a world with intelligent species as different as mammal and reptile will have to have a lot of world building on how those two interact. Zootopia is a good example of this where animals need different climates and have different dietary needs, mostly because one group of the population use to eat the other. Does a DM or writer need to explain why the heck Yuan Ti and Gith are in Dragonlance? Does every new setting need to factor in the social impact of elves living hundreds of years or where all the Fey came from?

No they don't. Its always cool to have fantasy give a more detailed look at the social and world building implications of some of the races, but its not needed to have a good time. A DM can have a list of common races for their world, and if a player wants to play something else they can say "Sure, you can play them. We're far away enough from their homeland, or perhaps they don't have one and are just incredibly rare all world over*, so don't expect to run into any".

And yes, a race that is incredibly rare world wide with no centralized population probably is a dying race (unless they can reproduce asexually/produce fullblooded offspring with other races), but most players I feel won't mind overlooking that detail.

Can't imagine that'll get you the result you want. A core part of world/campaign building to me is deciding which races will inhabit it, not thinking "Man, now I gotta find a place for these ten other guys they just added".

I was being flippant, but to be serious, what if a player wants to play a race you didn't assign to your world? Do you tell them no, or allow it and reason that whilst present in your world they aren't there in any major numbers?

Though, I can see why it would have to be adjudicated, as it seems in your and Boci's cases it has been DM fiat, rather than the actual rules.

For overland speed sure, but its not DM fiat to note that the party with a dwarf in it can't match the speed of a fleeing enemy with 30ft, which is not a rare speed for creatures to have. So if your DM is in the habit of having monsters retreat, having a dwarf can cause some awkward decisions when that happens. I'm not talking about the party being chased here, rather the opposite.

I notable haven't said whether I'm for or against removing 25 speed as a thing for playable races, I was just noting an effect it can have.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-07-06, 04:53 PM

I was being flippant, but to be serious, what if a player wants to play a race you didn't assign to your world? Do you tell them no, or allow it and reason that whilst present in your world they aren't there in any major numbers?

Personally, if it's a race I've decided doesn't exist (eg lopporits....oops, wrong franchise)? They get a "no, doesn't exist". And even a lot of the ones that do exist (canonically) aren't playable or aren't playable in that area. Because they only exist on the other side of the world, and there's no contact.

Races, for me, are so firmly entangled in the world that they're not entirely (or even mostly) a player-facing thing. Adding even a rare race means
1) figuring out where they came from (ie origin), because this matters a lot for my consistency
2) figuring out where they came from (ie where they exist)
3) figuring out how they play a role in societies
4) figuring out how others react to them everywhere the party might go
5) figuring out why they haven't been around before
6) etc.

So to me, the whole Custom Race thing and the "let's make tons of races that were setting specific into generic races for every setting" thing is exactly backwards. Races should be dominantly setting specific. No, there don't need to be Warforged in Arthas. Or elephant people in Forgotten Realms. Or kender.

Jophiel

2022-07-06, 04:55 PM

I was being flippant, but to be serious, what if a player wants to play a race you didn't assign to your world? Do you tell them no, or allow it and reason that whilst present in your world they aren't there in any major numbers?
Honestly, it doesn't come up. The people I play with are all of the mind that, while the game world gets inhabited and thus "built" by everyone, the foundation is laid by the DM. So no one ever insists on playing a race that doesn't exist there and I don't go into anyone else's game insisting on playing a race they don't have inhabiting that world. It's one of the pre-session zero things: Here's the game I'll (me or whoever) be running, do you want to play in this game?

I suppose if it ever DID come up, it would depend a lot on the race and their motivation. If someone was interested in Hobgoblin traits and was okay with playing a human with Saving Face and Martial Training then cool. If someone insists on playing a Tabaxi because they just have to be a cat-girl and no amount of climbing or speed bursts will appease them, then I'm not sure how it'd shake out. But that doesn't happen so no big deal.

Dork_Forge

2022-07-06, 04:58 PM

For overland speed sure, but its not DM fiat to note that the party with a dwarf in it can't match the speed of a fleeing enemy with 30ft, which is not a rare speed for creatures to have. So if your DM is in the habit of having monsters retreat, having a dwarf can cause some awkward decisions when that happens. I'm not talking about the party being chased here, rather the opposite.

I notable haven't said whether I'm for or against removing 25 speed as a thing for playable races, I was just noting an effect it can have.

Well no, but that's the interesting part. How is that Dwarf keeping up? What are they doing if not keeping up?

Jervis

2022-07-06, 05:03 PM

No they don't. Its always cool to have fantasy give a more detailed look at the social and world building implications of some of the races, but its not needed to have a good time. A DM can have a list of common races for their world, and if a player wants to play something else they can say "Sure, you can play them. We're far away enough from their homeland, or perhaps they don't have one and are just incredibly rare all world over*, so don't expect to run into any".

And yes, a race that is incredibly rare world wide with no centralized population probably is a dying race (unless they can reproduce asexually/produce fullblooded offspring with other races), but most players I feel won't mind overlooking that detail.

You see that’s one other problem I have. I don’t want players playing an obscure thing with no in setting lore attached that no one has every heard of just because it lets their cleric cast shield. I like options and optimization, I don’t like options and optimization devoiced from any buy in to the setting where you pick an obscure race who’s only lore is tied to something that doesn’t freaking exist here. I’ve made changes and concessions before if a player just really wanted to play something, but a player just picked up some random build and not bothering to learn anything about the setting makes me not care about their character. Playing a Gith or Harengon in a setting where they basically don’t exist tells me as a GM that you don’t care about the work I put in making the setting. Yeah in theory you can ban them but most players assume the “optional” content in new books is allowed by default. Take this from a GM who went to the trouble of making a setting in 3.5 that could justifiably included everything as well as making a massive amount of new homebrew and options that players proceeded to ignore and make characters that had absolutely nothing to do with anything made in the setting. Granted that goes beyond race choices and more into just general builds that didn’t have anything to do with the setting proper but you see my point.

Jophiel

2022-07-06, 05:04 PM

Well no, but that's the interesting part. How is that Dwarf keeping up? What are they doing if not keeping up?
When just "walking", I don't move 30' in six seconds. I certainly could if I wanted to but that's not my strolling speed. I just measured myself and it's actually closer to 20-25' in six seconds. So I'd assume a dwarf is just pumpin' the legs a little bit harder and making some delightful RP comments about how it's a pain to travel with such long legged folks without it having a mechanical impact on the journey.

For an even more real life example, my wife is considerably shorter than me with a shorter stride. Left to my own devices, I'll easily outwalk her but we can spend a day together out and about without me leaving her 5' further behind every six seconds or feeling like our travel speed is crippled. If we're ever getting chased by an owlbear though, she's outta luck :smallwink:

Boci

2022-07-06, 05:13 PM

If someone insists on playing a Tabaxi because they just have to be a cat-girl and no amount of climbing or speed bursts will appease them, then I'm not sure how it'd shake out. But that doesn't happen so no big deal.

To give a concrete example here, pictures sometimes inspire characters for me, so what about her:

https://i0.wp.com/that70sgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/catfolk.jpg?resize=237%2C300&ssl=1

Clearly she's a tabaxi, or some cat related race, I can't play her without it. If you say no, that's fine, I won't come back with another tabaxi, because it was the image that inspired the character, but that is the one i feel most inspired to play now, and it needs to be a tabaxi.

Well no, but that's the interesting part. How is that Dwarf keeping up? What are they doing if not keeping up?

Forcing the party to choose between splitting up and letting the fleeing monster get away?

You see that’s one other problem I have. I don’t want players playing an obscure thing with no in setting lore attached.

I'm personally fine with it as a DM. My gaming world is never done, so making up some lore for a rare/exotic race is fun and keeps me on my toes. It could even make my gaming world better, and if it doesn't? Then I won't add it to my notes after the game. Quite a few bits of my game have grown from fitting in a player's character race. I have a war in the north I really like that all started because a player of mine wanted to try out a homebrewed ice elf.

When just "walking", I don't move 30' in six seconds. I certainly could if I wanted to but that's not my strolling speed. I just measured myself and it's actually closer to 20-25' in six seconds. So I'd assume a dwarf is just pumpin' the legs a little bit harder and making some delightful RP comments about how it's a pain to travel with such long legged folks without it having a mechanical impact on the journey.

We're talking about a chase here, not walking.

Khrysaes

2022-07-06, 05:14 PM

So to me, the whole Custom Race thing and the "let's make tons of races that were setting specific into generic races for every setting" thing is exactly backwards. Races should be dominantly setting specific. No, there don't need to be Warforged in Arthas. Or elephant people in Forgotten Realms. Or kender.

I agree that each and every race doesnt need to be present in some setting.

There is at least precendent to some crossover
Namely Spelljammer as Krynn, Oerth, and Toril are close together in terms of spelljamming scale. Effectively neighboring solar systems.

Athas was technically also there, butnigh impossible to travel to or from.

The bigger issue i have with setting specific races crossing over are… planar i guess. For example Eberron is on the prime material plane, but its planar structure is so different that a crossover to forgotten realms makes no sense. Kalashtar, quori, daelkyr, and warforged are also tied very strongly to Eberron and little with anything present in any other setting.

I could see changelings and shifters existing in forgotten realms, at least but not strictly as non true breeding races since FR has both lycans and dopplegangers.