Let's get rid of races all together

[FabulousFizban]

I know wizards is trying to "fix" this problem by changing it to "species" or whatever, but why have mechanical effects for beings at all?! Make the ABIs based on background or something and have your race just be flavor. PROBLEM SOLVED.

EDIT: Also, race and species suck. Let's go with peoples. The Elven peoples. The Dwarven peoples. Halflings are still just Halflings though ;p

[Amnestic]

There's nothing stopping you from doing so, and indeed "mono-racial" parties aren't even that unusual from a campaign perspective ("we're all elves! we're all dwarves!", etc.). Given the updates to playable races in the multiverse book it seems like Wizards are aiming for more 'flavourful' racial features while decoupling ASIs from them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, that causes major setting-narrative disconnect. If you do that, the only way to make that meaningful in the setting is to remove races from the setting as well and make it mono-human. Which is an option, just not one people will like. "Races as fortnite skins" is, in my opinion, the worst possible option. It makes a mockery of the setting as well as the mechanics.

Edit: I'm not particularly concerned with the ASIs. But all the other mechanical parts, including height, weight, and features? Yeah. A dragonborn who can't breathe fire (etc) isn't a dragonborn, it's a human in a skin suit.

[Ionathus]

OneD&D character creation ties your stat bonuses to your background, rather than your race (with the explicit option to just buff whichever stat you like). It still keeps all the extra features (Darkvision, fey ancestry, extra feat for humans, etc) tied to the PC's race, though.

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but it does feel like a slight improvement because now you don't have to feel like you're "missing out" on the bonus by picking a DEX-based race for your CHA-based character.

[MadBear]

I'm all for having species grant unique and interesting bonuses. I am happy they are moving away from tying your ASI to your species though. The game relies too heavily on your ability scores to have it be an interesting thing to tie to your race.

Or put another way, the game already doesn't make sense if you try and cram the way ability scores work with characters. A typical Loxodon (giant elephant person) is on average just as strong as a typical halfling. Put another way, your typical 45lb halfling swinging a longsword will deal just as much damage as a 450lb loxodon swinging that same longsword. Not to mention that both species can only get to a max of 20 strength, meaning the strongest halfling is as strong as the strongest loxodon (at least in terms of sword swinging). So with that being the case, I'd rather them not limit character options which is what gating ASI to a species does.

[animorte]

I've tried a human-only format. I separated racial stats and provided a sort of point-buy that allows one to determine what features they have. I really like this idea, but it requires a lot of balancing (I did modify someone else's preexisting racial point-buy) and more noticeably, extra work on the part of players in constructing it. Just because I loved it doesn't mean my players would.

However, what did work better (especially for them) was taking the racial abilities as they are currently and balancing them out a bit better (looking at you, elves) and essentially providing that as a regional selection instead. I basically had the stats assigned to regions, climates, and obviously ancestry with some freedom for customization within reason. This would account for all manner of adjustments, from Halfling Nimble to Dragonborn Breath Weapon.

[Segev]

taking the racial abilities as they are currently and balancing them out a bit better (looking at you, elves)

I am curious whether you see elves in 5e as over- or under-powered, and why.

[animorte]

I am curious whether you see elves in 5e as over- or under-powered, and why.

I'm currently thinking the OneD&D Elf. I made a table on that just for Psyren, showing how much more valuable their features are.

[jjordan]

I know wizards is trying to "fix" this problem by changing it to "species" or whatever, but why have mechanical effects for beings at all?! Make the ABIs based on background or something and have your race just be flavor. PROBLEM SOLVED.

I dislike this idea and would go in the opposite direction. I think it's ridiculous that gnomes can use longbows and greatswords, for example. The current 5e implementation is the compromise solution that leaves all parties equally dissatisfied. :)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I dislike this idea and would go in the opposite direction. I think it's ridiculous that gnomes can use longbows and greatswords, for example. The current 5e implementation is the compromise solution that leaves all parties equally dissatisfied. :)

Strong agree with the last sentence. There is no global "right" answer for everyone, because different people want different, incompatible things.

[Psyren]

I'm currently thinking the OneD&D Elf. I made a table on that just for Psyren, showing how much more valuable their features are.

I, uh, don't remember

why have mechanical effects for beings at all?!

a) It's fun.
b) It's possible to do thoughtfully and successfully.

I dislike this idea and would go in the opposite direction. I think it's ridiculous that gnomes can use longbows and greatswords, for example. The current 5e implementation is the compromise solution that leaves all parties equally dissatisfied. :)

I don't agree that I'm quote, "equally dissatisfied." Species isn't my preferred term, but I consider it a step up from race (for reasons I won't go into here), and I could live with it if needed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't agree that I'm quote, "equally dissatisfied." Species isn't my preferred term, but I consider it a step up from race (for reasons I won't go into here), and I could live with it if needed.

TBH, race vs species is just kinda noise to me. I don't care either way. Sure, I kinda prefer "lineage" a tiny little bit, but it's all way down my list of things I care about in regards to this area of character creation.

I think the comment you were quoting (although I can't speak for him) was more about the bigger "what mechanical features, if any, should races/species/lineages/whatever have" topic. There really isn't global consensus on that matter--things that "fix" the problem for one make the problem worse for others...and vice versa. So disappointing everyone is kinda necessary for having a stable middle ground. But :shrug:, whatever.

[animorte]

I, uh, don't remember

I believe it was discussing character origins UA and my comment started with, "looks like it's my turn to step into the ring with Psyren."

[LibraryOgre]

I somewhat did this with my redesign of 2e into a points-based system. You chose your total array of abilities, and could decide if some were learned or innate. If I wanted to play an elf, but didn't purchase anything related to longevity, then I was just an elf; I might live for a thousand years, but it was irrelevant to the game, and I didn't have any particular resistance to unnatural aging. On the other hand, I might decide that being a wizard made me immune to age, if I purchased that trait.

Isn't this more or less the idea of custom lineage, though?

[Greywander]

I know wizards is trying to "fix" this problem by changing it to "species" or whatever, but why have mechanical effects for beings at all?! Make the ABIs based on background or something and have your race just be flavor. PROBLEM SOLVED.

Where's the problem? Is it so hard to believe that a 10 foot fire demon is going to have different capabilities than a 2 foot psychic leprechaun? Fantasy races are, to a degree, defined by their special abilities. Take those away and you may as well just make it an all-human setting. Even if you did have an all-human setting, racial differences could be justified as a mystical blessing by a tribe's specific god, or really taking after one of their key ancestors/patriarchs/heroes, or some ambient magic of the area they live in, or any number of other justifications. Even according to modern genetics, it makes sense that a tribe established by a great hero will probably share similar genes to that hero (albeit not usually to the degree seen in fantasy), assuming the whole tribe can trace their ancestry back to them. That said, I tend to prefer more mystical explanations than scientific ones when it comes to fantasy.

More than that, it just makes sense from a game design perspective. It's another point of customization for your character. You could abstract it away, so that a "race" is purely cosmetic and an "ability package" is chosen separately, but what purpose would that serve? Now the player has to make two decisions instead of one, and a lot of players who are less invested in roleplay aren't going to care about cosmetic race. The reverse is probably true for those who only care about roleplay. If you really want to be race X but have the abilities of race Y, it's so much easier to just take race Y and refluff your character as race X. And most people will be happy to simply use a race with the abilities it comes with.

Now, I'm all for splitting off biological abilities from cultural ones. Part of that is because I like having more points of customization, as it allows for more possible combinations. But then you have things like the Reincarnate spell, or really any magic that can turn one creature into a different creature, in which case it's weird that you'd lose cultural traits by changing into a different creature. Like, I assume that the free cantrip that high elves get is just because high elves have more magical education, considering that it used INT as the casting stat, so it makes no sense you'd lose it if you changed into a different race and yet you'd keep any wizard levels you had. It would be different if it used CHA, as I can definitely see why you'd lose (or gain!) sorcerous spellcasting by changing races, as sorcery is innate to your biology.

Personally, I really don't like the term "species", as I feel like it sounds too modern and scientific. TBH, I'm not sure "race" is much better in that regard, but it's already firmly entrenched to the point we don't think about it anymore. I remember someone suggesting the use of "kind", which is a much more antiquated term and fits the aesthetics of a medieval fantasy setting much better.

[Psyren]

I think the comment you were quoting (although I can't speak for him) was more about the bigger "what mechanical features, if any, should races/species/lineages/whatever have" topic. There really isn't global consensus on that matter--things that "fix" the problem for one make the problem worse for others...and vice versa. So disappointing everyone is kinda necessary for having a stable middle ground. But :shrug:, whatever.

I'm not disappointed with racial mechanics either, especially post-MPMM. Obviously the 2014 races need an overhaul now, but they're in the middle of that.

Isn't this more or less the idea of custom lineage, though?

Wellllll.... not really I'd say. There are 4 mechanical choice points with Custom Lineage and they're pretty rigid:

- Size: Small or Medium
- ASI: You get a single +2, but given that everyone gets +2/+1 now this isn't really special anymore.
- Darkvision OR a free proficiency
- One feat of your choice - this will also get narrower as feats with level requirements become more common.

Any point-based system is going to eclipse those in variety I think.

Personally, I really don't like the term "species", as I feel like it sounds too modern and scientific. TBH, I'm not sure "race" is much better in that regard, but it's already firmly entrenched to the point we don't think about it anymore. I remember someone suggesting the use of "kind", which is a much more antiquated term and fits the aesthetics of a medieval fantasy setting much better.

Seconded. I've heard Lineage as mentioned, and also Kin, Origin, and of course Ancestry (who cares if PF got to it first) and I like all of those better than Species.

[Atranen]

I think WoTC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The less important they make species, the more real-life parallels come to the fore. If elves and dwarves are radically different in terms of biology, those parallels are less pronounced. But they've been pushing for decades now to make different species more and more alike, and then the parallels are more pronounced, and then they have to make them even more similar to avoid any uncomfortable implications.

The only stable solution is "humans in hats" or "really distinct species", with different biologies, not just cultures.

It seems they're going with humans in hats. It's not my preferred interpretation for a setting, but given the variety and abundance of different species in many campaign settings, it may be their best choice. In which case, I think they ought to commit to it, rather than have a long slow slide towards a foregone conclusion.

[greenstone]

I want to see it go in the other direction - more impact of choice of ancestry.

I want mechanical and social differences between elfs and dwarfs and whateverthehecks. Big differences. Something that can kick guide players into playing an elf as an elf, not just as a human in funny makeup (hi Star Trek rubber-forehead aliens).

After all, why have different races in a game setting if you are not going to do anything with them?

[Psyren]

I want to see it go in the other direction - more impact of choice of ancestry.

I want mechanical and social differences between elfs and dwarfs and whateverthehecks. Big differences. Something that can kick guide players into playing an elf as an elf, not just as a human in funny makeup (hi Star Trek rubber-forehead aliens).

After all, why have different races in a game setting if you are not going to do anything with them?

There are plenty of social differences, they're just setting-specific (as they should be). Faerun Elves are artful individualists, Ravnica Elves are amoral puppetmasters, Eberron Elves are reserved traditionalists, Krynn elves are haughty isolationists, and so on. And then there are communities within those settings, e.g. Valenar vs. Aerenal etc. The point is that culture should be driven by a combination of nature and nurture, not just one or the other.

[Goobahfish]

This is an interesting idea. Except, it is not. It is sort of the opposite of interesting.

This whole conversation boils down to a conflict between two basic ideas:

#1: Some players want to play against type
#2: Type should matter

Honestly, in D&D #2 has generally been quite badly implemented. Saying that the main difference between Elves and Dwarves is that one has a higher dexterity and the other a higher constitution was fine for the 1980's, but is pretty lame 40 years down the track. Most races in D&D are glorified 'hats' most of the time. The fact that half-elves exist is a pretty good indication of the rather... human-centric view of D&D races.

That said, as has been pointed out, an Ogre is stronger than a Halfling, and if the game does not reflect that, the game isn't particularly 'convincing'. However, if an Ogre does more damage than a Halfling with no other obvious drawbacks, why would you ever play a Halfling? At least, a Halfling Fighter.

That was one of the reasons I loved 5e's stat-cap (20) and would probably have preferred it to be lower (18). That way, getting +2 stat isn't the 'obvious choice' and you could fill out other things. It would also make choosing a +2-race less necessary.

That said, flexible stat bonuses... just ditch them entirely. Just go with your original stats. If they aren't tied to race... why are they there at all?

[JackPhoenix]

It's possible to do thoughtfully and successfully.

It is possible, but WotC has shown itself neither able or willing to do that.

[Kane0]

No thankyou, i'd rather split the ability boosts to 1 from race, 1 from class and 1 from background. Then diversify racial features to be less reliant on 'get X spell'

[Segev]

This whole conversation boils down to a conflict between two basic ideas:

#1: Some players want to play against type
#2: Type should matter

These actually aren't in conflict. The trouble arises when somebody wants to "play against type" but have all the stats of playing IN type, just with the skin of a different type. If you want to play against type, you absolutely can and should do everything you can to make the most "against type" version of the thing you want to play, but you should do so within the bounds of rules that actually do something to enforce type.

If the rules don't enforce type in a way that makes type matter, you cannot play against type. You're not playing against type when you play "the halfling barbarian" if the only thing stopping halflings from playing barbarians is the DM deciding they just...don't. You're just playing a barbarian that looks like he's shorter than normal, even though it doesn't matter.

I, as a player, enjoy character archetypes that are against the grain, but I can't actually play those when there is no grain to go against. I often find my character concepts by listening to how a setting is designed and why certain kinds of people do or do not do a thing, and then figuring out what could make a character of that sort of person not do or do the thing despite the pressures against it. But when the only reason they don't do the thing, or do do the thing, as a "type," is because hand-wavium says they do, there's no reason why they couldn't do the opposite and it's not really playing against type so much as showing why the type doesn't make sense.

And that isn't the purpose of playing against type, to me. The purpose is to use the friction to generate an interesting character concept.

[KyleG]

No thankyou, i'd rather split the ability boosts to 1 from race, 1 from class and 1 from background. Then diversify racial features to be less reliant on 'get X spell'

Hellyeah. Making everyone magical is somethingI'm finding very frustrating.
I'm also of the opinion that racial features should be frequently usable and or grow with you.

[Psyren]

If the "type" you're depending on (whether playing into OR against) hinges on arbitrary anachronisms or conventions like "halflings can't/shouldn't be barbarians" - then it's a stupid type and the game is better off without it. Class flavor is mutable, even adiegetic, and race-class restrictions (for PCs especially) went the way of the dodo for a reason - they stopped being fun back in 2e.

Hellyeah. Making everyone magical is somethingI'm finding very frustrating.
I'm also of the opinion that racial features should be frequently usable and or grow with you.

Most are either at-will, spell slot based, or PB/LR these days.

[Leon]

Everyone's a Flying Green octagon

[Kane0]

Everyone's a Flying Green octagon

Floating blue hexagon, thankyou very much!

[Leon]

Floating blue hexagon, thankyou very much!

Beige it is then.

[Atranen]

If the "type" you're depending on (whether playing into OR against) hinges on arbitrary anachronisms or conventions like "halflings can't/shouldn't be barbarians" - then it's a stupid type and the game is better off without it. Class flavor is mutable, even adiegetic, and race-class restrictions (for PCs especially) went the way of the dodo for a reason - they stopped being fun back in 2e.

Among all the examples to pick, "halflings aren't as good at being barbarians" is a pretty reasonable, non arbitrary norm.

"Only humans can be paladins" or "gnomes must be illusionists" seem better targets.

[Amnestic]

Feels weird talking about halfling barbarians being weird when Talenta exists in Eberron. They're halfling barbarians that ride dinosaurs. That's just a culture we have in one of the major core settings.

And hey, why wouldn't they be a good fit for barbarians? Does any other race have a racial bonus against being Frightened? I dunno, I didn't check, but people often point at Barbs being vulnerable to fear as an oversight in the class design, and hey we've got a race perfect to cover that weakness.