What's with WotC avoiding Class bloat but not Race bloat?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, I feel like D&D has way more "gimmick races" than I'd like. As I mentioned before, I vastly prefer settings that have a small handful of "races" with fleshed-out cultures and world-views.

Personally, I dislike tying culture and world-view to race more than incidentally. Mono-cultural races and mono-racial cultures (with the exception of cultures that are highly isolated) are bad worldbuilding IMO.

Sure, certain racial facts may play a role in shaping cultures, but I strongly dislike the "over here is a human kingdom[1], over there is an elven one, and over there is a dwarven one." And especially the idea that an elf from <place X> and an elf from <place Y> have more than biology in common by default. I think that each culture should be as diverse (both in makeup and in thought process) as all the real-world cultures.

As a result, I'm moving away (when I overcome terminal laziness) from biological sub-races entirely. Each race is its own thing which only gives the biological features; each race has multiple cultural sub-divisions which give most of the rest. Some pairs of races will have overlapping cultural choices, but the features won't be identical (due to building on a different parent), but will be similar.

This makes a human from Imaskar different at all levels than one from Cormanthyr (probably misspelling things...) and that Imaskari human will have about as much in common with a dwarf or goblin from Imaskar as they'd have with a human from Cormanthyr. Or whatever.

[Amechra]

The thing is? I agree with that. As far as I'm concerned, Humans/elves/dwarves are basically the same race.

(I confess to being a sci-fi fan first and a fantasy fan second.)

[Dork_Forge]

The thing is? I agree with that. As far as I'm concerned, Humans/elves/dwarves are basically the same race.

(I confess to being a sci-fi fan first and a fantasy fan second.)

What what? How do you square that circle when it comes to life spans, the need to sleep, and darkvision?

[PhoenixPhyre]

The thing is? I agree with that. As far as I'm concerned, Humans/elves/dwarves are basically the same race.

(I confess to being a sci-fi fan first and a fantasy fan second.)

What what? How do you square that circle when it comes to life spans, the need to sleep, and darkvision?

I agree with Dork_Forge here. Plus the whole "there's no evolution and these were created at radically different times and in radically different ways by radically different entities" thing.

I'll admit to thinking that the whole "if they don't think completely alien, they're the same" idea is not a useful concept for a TTRPG. Because, in the end, they're going to be played by humans. And humans don't think completely alien to humans (rather definitionally). So "thinking completely alien" === "not playable". Or even really representable, since even the DM is human. And even if it were (counterfactually) possible to represent them, the options for truly alien creatures boil down to conquer or be conquered. And not just conquer, but obliterate. At least if they compete for the same resources. Because cooperation requires at least some understanding, which means they can't be too alien. We want races whose drives and motivations are partially the same, but with some tweaks. And if you want something close to playability by anyone who is not [insane | expert], you have to have that "partially" be "mostly". Which means that they'll be able to live together. Generally.

[Dork_Forge]

I agree with Dork_Forge here. Plus the whole "there's no evolution and these were created at radically different times and in radically different ways by radically different entities" thing.

I'll admit to thinking that the whole "if they don't think completely alien, they're the same" idea is not a useful concept for a TTRPG. Because, in the end, they're going to be played by humans. And humans don't think completely alien to humans (rather definitionally). So "thinking completely alien" === "not playable". Or even really representable, since even the DM is human. And even if it were (counterfactually) possible to represent them, the options for truly alien creatures boil down to conquer or be conquered. And not just conquer, but obliterate. At least if they compete for the same resources. Because cooperation requires at least some understanding, which means they can't be too alien. We want races whose drives and motivations are partially the same, but with some tweaks. And if you want something close to playability by anyone who is not [insane | expert], you have to have that "partially" be "mostly". Which means that they'll be able to live together. Generally.

With the opportunity for differences nicely being subtle in motivation, e.g.:

-Elves might be extremely willing to use 'short term' compromises, because what's 80 years in the grand scheme of their settlement? Or even the life of the secretary signing the treaty?

-Dwarves may be willing to strike deal of cohabitation, with the other settling the land whilst they settle under it, pooling together during times of conflict

-Humans get the best deal they can wherever they are, they are after all meant to be the most adaptable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

With the opportunity for differences nicely being subtle in motivation, e.g.:

-Elves might be extremely willing to use 'short term' compromises, because what's 80 years in the grand scheme of their settlement? Or even the life of the secretary signing the treaty?

-Dwarves may be willing to strike deal of cohabitation, with the other settling the land whilst they settle under it, pooling together during times of conflict

-Humans get the best deal they can wherever they are, they are after all meant to be the most adaptable.

My personal taste leans away from the super-long lived idea (my dwarves hit ~150 and high elves ~200 max), but yeah.

Spoiler: A cultural example from my setting

Show

The main cultures of high elves and dwarves in the main play area of my setting are at odds. Not hostile, but baseline dislike. Why? Because of how they approach writing. That culture of high elves sees language (spoken or written) as an extension of their status competitions and an art form, in which you try to hide all sorts of insulting subtexts inside of bland surface. Where the surface meaning is the least accurate, and the "white lie" (or even really really nearly-black lie) is expected. The dwarves of that region, however, treat the written word as sacred. You write what happened, in plain language. Lying in written text is one of their highest taboos. "Honest as dwarf writing" is a saying. And you try to get dwarven record takers...unless you want to shade the truth.

In fact, there was a major scandal caused because the ancestors of the main clans there did a really dirty deed (betrayed their allied clan, opening the gates for enemies out of jealousy and so that they could steal a magic item the other clan had) and then lied in the official record. But they were bound by the conventions enough that they also wrote the truth in their journals and filed them away in the archives! Where the party found them and successfully blackmailed the descendant leaders (who knew about the betrayal) into giving up their positions in favor of some people who didn't know (to prevent a total civil war).

On the other hand, the accuracy of elven records is...questionable...unless you're very familiar with the exact time period and local details. Because they do tell the truth...hidden between the lines. If you're not smart enough and knowledgeable enough to discover it, that's your fault.

[Ralanr]

My personal taste leans away from the super-long lived idea (my dwarves hit ~150 and high elves ~200 max), but yeah.

Spoiler: A cultural example from my setting

Show

The main cultures of high elves and dwarves in the main play area of my setting are at odds. Not hostile, but baseline dislike. Why? Because of how they approach writing. That culture of high elves sees language (spoken or written) as an extension of their status competitions and an art form, in which you try to hide all sorts of insulting subtexts inside of bland surface. Where the surface meaning is the least accurate, and the "white lie" (or even really really nearly-black lie) is expected. The dwarves of that region, however, treat the written word as sacred. You write what happened, in plain language. Lying in written text is one of their highest taboos. "Honest as dwarf writing" is a saying. And you try to get dwarven record takers...unless you want to shade the truth.

In fact, there was a major scandal caused because the ancestors of the main clans there did a really dirty deed (betrayed their allied clan, opening the gates for enemies out of jealousy and so that they could steal a magic item the other clan had) and then lied in the official record. But they were bound by the conventions enough that they also wrote the truth in their journals and filed them away in the archives! Where the party found them and successfully blackmailed the descendant leaders (who knew about the betrayal) into giving up their positions in favor of some people who didn't know (to prevent a total civil war).

On the other hand, the accuracy of elven records is...questionable...unless you're very familiar with the exact time period and local details. Because they do tell the truth...hidden between the lines. If you're not smart enough and knowledgeable enough to discover it, that's your fault.

Elves being petty snobs who snip at each other in documents makes me giddy because we saw it all the time and still do.

[Amechra]

It's actually not a "psychologically alien" kinda thing for me, actually. The reason why I cluster those three into the same race is that they...

• have the same body plan.
• have really similar diets.
• have really similar lifecycles.
• have really similar reproductive cycles.
• have incredibly similar metaphysics.

And like, yeah, sure, those humans over there are shorter than average and grow copious facial hair, while the ones living in that region got blessed by some deity and now live 2-3 times as long. That's cool, but those are still humans.

[Dork_Forge]

It's actually not a "psychologically alien" kinda thing for me, actually. The reason why I cluster those three into the same race is that they...

• have the same body plan.
• have really similar diets.
• have really similar lifecycles.
• have really similar reproductive cycles.
• have incredibly similar metaphysics.

And like, yeah, sure, those humans over there are shorter than average and grow copious facial hair, while the ones living in that region got blessed by some deity and now live 2-3 times as long. That's cool, but those are still humans.

How do they have similar lifecycles? And I wasn't aware that the reproductive cycles were shared in 5E.

Although if similar diets can lump together races, then my cat and I could probably be the same race: copious amounts of protein, some greens, and some supplements.

This seems like most 5E races would be the same race under your definitions?

[Phhase]

It's actually not a "psychologically alien" kinda thing for me, actually. The reason why I cluster those three into the same race is that they...

• have the same body plan.
• have really similar diets.
• have really similar lifecycles.
• have really similar reproductive cycles.
• have incredibly similar metaphysics.

And like, yeah, sure, those humans over there are shorter than average and grow copious facial hair, while the ones living in that region got blessed by some deity and now live 2-3 times as long. That's cool, but those are still humans.

See, this is why I like the really strange stuff like Thri-kreen, Locathah, and especially Warforged/other constructs. While not as relatable per se, they can be really interesting by virtue of their radical differences. Pity they get little to no respect in this edition.

[Xervous]

See, this is why I like the really strange stuff like Thri-kreen, Locathah, and especially Warforged/other constructs. While not as relatable per se, they can be really interesting by virtue of their radical differences. Pity they get little to no respect in this edition.

If you’re aiming anywhere near coherency warforged demand a lot of a setting in ways that other races like Thri-kreen don’t. So you either warp the world to involve them, play Eberron, exclude them, or you’re running silly D&D (again).

So there’s people who don’t want to warp the custom setting and don’t want to play Eberron on top the ‘no robutts in muh DnD’. Thri-kreen don’t bring the baggage of requiring a successful, non divine creator in the way that warforged tend to do. That is assuming we’re not talking about a special snowflake for whom the warforged stat block is a good fit.

[KorvinStarmast]

Personally, I feel like D&D has way more "gimmick races" than I'd like. As I mentioned before, I vastly prefer settings that have a small handful of "races" with fleshed-out cultures and world-views.

Tend to see it this way.

If you’re aiming anywhere near coherency warforged demand a lot of a setting in ways that other races like Thri-kreen don’t. So you either warp the world to involve them, play Eberron, exclude them, or you’re running silly D&D (again).

Concur.

Warforged fit Eberron nicely. I can do without them anywhere else.

[Amnestic]

As a one off individual character, warforged mechanically fit any golem-type character, which every official 5e setting has. Wizards do be experimenting.

Putting them in as a 'society'-size race will likely require some adjustment though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a one off individual character, warforged mechanically fit any golem-type character, which every official 5e setting has. Wizards do be experimenting.

Putting them in as a 'society'-size race will likely require some adjustment though.

Wizards don't however generally make living golems with souls. In fact, that's rather the opposite of a golem-type character. Being soulless creatures without minds, piloted by elemental forces.

I included a knock-off warforged in my setting. But intentionally modified it, especially in the lore. One of their key racial "traits" is that no one knows why they awake or have souls. The gods don't have anything to do with it; there are lots of identical construct bodies that never awaken. It's one of the explicitly unanswered questions of the setting.

And they don't have a society, as such. They're all accidents, individuals who one day just woke up. Many take to adventuring to try to find personal answers, but they only have minimal shared culture (other than the parts that come from their literal assembly--the steel-forged are made of metal and big and strong and tend to the arcane, while the bark-skin are, well, made of rock and wood and tend toward natural-connections due to their original nature).

[Trask]

I think avoiding race bloat is less necessary because they're more mechanically simple packages and so they can be easily curated for one's own campaign as befits their milieu. It can be a harder sell to curate classes because they define your character much more than races and they are more integral to the game.

I've played many a game where races were limited, but I've still yet to encounter a game where the DM limited what classes we could play.

[Second Wind]

The thing is? I agree with that. As far as I'm concerned, Humans/elves/dwarves are basically the same race

There's space to make them different, if you play heavily into the implications of darkvision, longevity, and stonecunning/trance. But that rarely happens. In practice, gnomes and halflings are just humans, too, because size is a ribbon. There's way more variation between dogs than between demihumans.

[Xervous]

There's space to make them different, if you play heavily into the implications of darkvision, longevity, and stonecunning/trance. But that rarely happens. In practice, gnomes and halflings are just humans, too, because size is a ribbon. There's way more variation between dogs than between demihumans.

If it fits in a purse it’s a rat not a dog

[Amnestic]

Wizards don't however generally make living golems with souls. In fact, that's rather the opposite of a golem-type character. Being soulless creatures without minds, piloted by elemental forces.

Yeah, that's why I said it works as a one off character. Because they generally don't do that, but sometimes their experiments get a bit crazy.

[KorvinStarmast]

As a one off individual character, warforged mechanically fit any golem-type character, which every official 5e setting has. Wizards do be experimenting.

Cue up Ozzie Ozborne leading Black Sabbath in Iron Man.
...He was turned to steel, in a great magnetic field...

Putting them in as a 'society'-size race will likely require some adjustment though.

I prefer the one off idea, but I guess that if enough are up and around, per Eberron's world building themes, there would eventually be a community ...

I included a knock-off warforged in my setting. But intentionally modified it, especially in the lore. One of their key racial "traits" is that no one knows why they awake or have souls. The gods don't have anything to do with it; there are lots of identical construct bodies that never awaken. It's one of the explicitly unanswered questions of the setting.

And it worked/works well.

They're all accidents, individuals who one day just woke up.

We'll get that Black Sabbath song out again.

It can be a harder sell to curate classes because they define your character much more than races and they are more integral to the game.

Concur.

If it fits in a purse it’s a rat not a dog

For sure. My previous next door neighbor had one of those little barky things; I referred to it as the rat next door.

[JackPhoenix]

Thri-kreen don’t bring the baggage of requiring a successful, non divine creator in the way that warforged tend to do.

You know what brings the 'baggage of requiring a succesful, non divine creator'? Pot of Awakening. Common magic item. Which actually isn't that far from warforged: It turns plants into sapient creatures. A warforged is a sapient creature made out of living plant matter serving all 'vital' functions drapped over metal frame serving as skeleton, covered with armor serving as a skin.

[Xervous]

You know what brings the 'baggage of requiring a succesful, non divine creator'? Pot of Awakening. Common magic item. Which actually isn't that far from warforged: It turns plants into sapient creatures. A warforged is a sapient creature made out of living plant matter serving all 'vital' functions drapped over metal frame serving as skeleton, covered with armor serving as a skin.

I’d go looking in player options for examples rather than magic items which are explicitly a GM call. Magic items only need to be justified when the GM deigns to include them, player options and setting details need to be justified by default. And by justification I mean “verisimilitude explanation XYZ” or “don’t take it so seriously man”.

[KorvinStarmast]

You know what brings the 'baggage of requiring a succesful, non divine creator'? Pot of Awakening. Common magic item. Which actually isn't that far from warforged: It turns plants into sapient creatures. A warforged is a sapient creature made out of living plant matter serving all 'vital' functions drapped over metal frame serving as skeleton, covered with armor serving as a skin.

Just gonna say that back in the 70's a lot of the "earthy" people swore that you could talk to your plants and they'd respond. The comic strip Doonesbury had quite a few strips lampooning that idea, and one of the characters had ongoing conversations with her plants. I think that I also recall a few Bloom County strips that did that also but that's maybe a cross memory thing going on.

A magic item that makes plants into sapient beings that you can talk to comes off with a very heavy 70's vibe.

[Psyren]

This is another reason I like Ravenloft. You don't have to deal with "muh immersion!" wailing for any race, because the Powers don't care.

Wizards don't however generally make living golems with souls. In fact, that's rather the opposite of a golem-type character. Being soulless creatures without minds, piloted by elemental forces.

I like the idea that magic can cause some things to happen unintentionally.

[JackPhoenix]

I’d go looking in player options for examples rather than magic items which are explicitly a GM call. Magic items only need to be justified when the GM deigns to include them, player options and setting details need to be justified by default. And by justification I mean “verisimilitude explanation XYZ” or “don’t take it so seriously man”.

Level 2 Artificer says hi. And there are various options to create undead or True Polymorph objects into creatures in PHB. Or Wish.

[MoiMagnus]

Level 2 Artificer says hi. And there are various options to create undead or True Polymorph objects into creatures in PHB. Or Wish.

That's one point I really disliked about the design of the Artificer. Suddenly, the list of magical item went from being a list of suggestions to the GM to a menu players can pick from.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's one point I really disliked about the design of the Artificer. Suddenly, the list of magical item went from being a list of suggestions to the GM to a menu players can pick from.

Agreed. Very much agreed.

[Psyren]

Artificer itself is optional (i.e. not core) so nothing has changed from a magic item perspective.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Artificer itself is optional (i.e. not core) so nothing has changed from a magic item perspective.

But adding Artificer also means adding not only magic items generally, but specific magic items as a player entitlement. So it's optional...that requires other optional features to function. It'd be like a class that got to choose feats (not ASI which optionally could be changed for feats), but a feature that says "choose a feat of your choice." Adding that to a featless game necessarily involves adding feats to the game. In a way that changes the nature of the world.

The existence of an Artificer smuggles in a bunch of other worldbuilding features that were previously optional. But doesn't say it does. Which irritates me.

Note: I allow the artificer, but the design bugs me. I can separate the two.

[Psyren]

But adding Artificer also means adding not only magic items generally, but specific magic items as a player entitlement. So it's optional...that requires other optional features to function. It'd be like a class that got to choose feats (not ASI which optionally could be changed for feats), but a feature that says "choose a feat of your choice." Adding that to a featless game necessarily involves adding feats to the game. In a way that changes the nature of the world.

The existence of an Artificer smuggles in a bunch of other worldbuilding features that were previously optional. But doesn't say it does. Which irritates me.

Note: I allow the artificer, but the design bugs me. I can separate the two.

Yeah, just like if you add Variant Human or Custom Lineage to a featless game that carries implications you will need to sort out. I don't disagree. So... sort them out.

If you want to allow artificer but rein in their toolbox, just ban the Replicate Magic Item infusion. That makes it so the class is still perfectly effective, and keeps your player out of the DMG.

[KorvinStarmast]

The existence of an Artificer smuggles in a bunch of other worldbuilding features that were previously optional. But doesn't say it does. Which irritates me.

I have allowed one. Never again.