Let's get rid of races all together

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've definitely seen complaints about this, even in this thread I think, so I didn't pull this out of nowhere.

People want the exact right ASIs, they want stuff that isn't boring, they want stuff that isn't going to interfere or overlap with their other features.

So I think the question is appropriate. You need to define features that aren't class features and work for every class.

And even if you do, you'll end up with some of them being better for some builds than others. So you'll still pigeonhole builds into specific races. At least if your primary consideration is mechanical optimization.

The fundamental problem is the emphasis on mechanical optimization. As long as that's the focus, the only possible outcome is homogenization and only cosmetic differences. Which is a world I have no interest in.

[Snowbluff]

Once we decide that mechanics are the primary consideration here (instead of trying to mechanically bring to life a fictional creation), there is no stopping point. Once everything is judged on "does it provide me more power", interesting is a secondary consideration at best.

And as to "boring", I've had people say that +X weapons (the epitome of boring) are better than "interesting" ones because they just give flat mechanics. So again, interesting/boring is subjective. If we just make everything anyone has ever said is boring into "choose whatever you want"...there's not much room left at all.

Classes, "races" (whatever you want to call them), levels--those are supposed to restrict and constrain your choices. Otherwise there's no point in having any of them and GURPS is your game.

To say that I overly care about optimization would be wrong. I think said package should create opportunities. As I amended into my earlier statement, I think playstyle opportunities should be a consideration, and I don't think optimization should necessarily be in conflict with creating playstyles.

Is there a restriction? Yes, there already is. Race/etc is already mutually exclusive with any other race/etc, and given that not all contextual, qualitative options aren't always good in every context, there are more things to consider than what is always generically and numerically superior. In my example, Goblin is a more meaningful choice for a wizard than a rogue, and part of that is because one ability is redundant. Fury of the Small practically works everywhere because everyone does damage and is expected to. However, I would rather some things be redundant or otherwise not great in some cases if they're allowed to have depth. If the two are in conflict, that's fine with me, and I think people should consider that.

Furthermore, saying that we're jumping off a slippery slope makes for a less convincing argument rather than a more convincing one, for the record.

I happen to like "racial" ASIs because they're small things that don't disturb much (unless you're chasing the optimization dragon) but provide a little "yeah, this goliath is different from this gnome" hit.

Yep. Goblin who rolled 18 on str is definitely hitting different from a goliath who assign 15 to str and put in 2 asi points.
To be more genuine, such a distinction does not exist in this sense.

I've absolutely, in this thread even, heard complaints about that exact thing.

I've definitely seen complaints about this, even in this thread I think, so I didn't pull this out of nowhere.

Doesn't mean I don't disagree. If you've seen it from someone, this is is directed at said someone as well. I even said earlier that I think OP had seemed to have said as such.

[Dr.Samurai]

And even if you do, you'll end up with some of them being better for some builds than others. So you'll still pigeonhole builds into specific races. At least if your primary consideration is mechanical optimization.

The fundamental problem is the emphasis on mechanical optimization. As long as that's the focus, the only possible outcome is homogenization and only cosmetic differences. Which is a world I have no interest in.

I tend to agree, hence my question. I'm not sure how you pull it off, because the kinds of features that hit all the boxes are going to be pretty samey I'd imagine.

The same people that are sad that the goblin barbarian doesn't get +2 to Strength, are also going to be bummed out that their Dash as a Bonus action racial feature is redundant with Cunning Action on their rogue. So that feature has to go for something that works just as well for every class combination, so that's going to be something that's not that interesting. Because the idea underneath all of this is that "my selection of race shouldn't have a non-beneficial impact on my character".

[PhoenixPhyre]

To say that I overly care about optimization would be wrong. I think said package should create opportunities. As I amended into my earlier statement, I think playstyle opportunities should be a consideration, and I don't think optimization should necessarily be in conflict with creating playstyles.

Is there a restriction? Yes, there already is. Race/etc is already mutually exclusive with any other race/etc, and given that not all contextual, qualitative options aren't always good in every context, there are more things to consider than what is always generically and numerically superior. In my example, Goblin is a more meaningful choice for a wizard than a rogue, and part of that is because one ability is redundant. However, I would rather some things be redundant or otherwise not great in some cases if they're allowed to have depth. If the two are in conflict, that's fine with me, and I think people should consider that.

Furthermore, saying that we're jumping off a slippery slope makes for a less convincing argument rather than a more convincing one, for the record.

Except this entire thread's OP was literally plunging down that slope. Saying that races shouldn't be a mechanical thing and should just be "pick whatever you want and flavor it how you want". Which is the end-game of the optimization chase.

It's literally the path we've taken since Tasha's--the talk around Tasha's was "well, this just makes more things viable"...when it turned out that it really didn't. It just changed the discussion from "must have ASIs" to "ok, now you have to have the right features" and "just do Custom Lineage".

Pointing out that we're already sliding way down a slippery slope isn't a fallacy--it's pointing out fact.

Yep. Goblin who rolled 18 on str is definitely hitting different from a goliath who assign 15 to str and put in 2 asi points.
To be more genuine, such a distinction does not exist in this sense.
.

If and only if you look only at the mechanical outcomes in the aggregate. Which is exactly what I'm decrying.

For one thing, those don't coexist--you're either rolling for stats or doing point-by/arrays. For another thing, there's a huge difference thematic difference between "I should be weak, but I'm abnormally strong for my people for <reason>" and "My people are normally stronger than most, but I didn't put tons of effort in". Even if they end up in mostly the same place, the route matters. Unless, of course, the only thing that matters is the numbers. Once numbers become your highest goal, everything else starts getting washed out. Because once only the final result matters, how you got there (which is 90% of the roleplay) no longer can matter.

[Dr.Samurai]

If and only if you look only at the mechanical outcomes in the aggregate. Which is exactly what I'm decrying.

For one thing, those don't coexist--you're either rolling for stats or doing point-by/arrays. For another thing, there's a huge difference thematic difference between "I should be weak, but I'm abnormally strong for my people for <reason>" and "My people are normally stronger than most, but I didn't put tons of effort in". Even if they end up in mostly the same place, the route matters. Unless, of course, the only thing that matters is the numbers. Once numbers become your highest goal, everything else starts getting washed out. Because once only the final result matters, how you got there (which is 90% of the roleplay) no longer can matter.

As an example of this that is not race-related, take a look at the Beastmaster Ranger.

There will come a time when D&D players will think of the Beastmaster as a type of summoner class, and will not know that it originated as a ranger that perfected the bond between ranger and beast, to the point that they were as one and fought alongside each other.

Instead, it is a class that can casually pull spirits and form them into animal bodies. And it can swap these spirit forms each day, and summon a new one if it dies. Something more like a conjurer or necromancer rather than what a beastmaster was originally intended to be.

Everyone considers the beast spirit alternative option to be superior because the mechanics all check out. But the theme is wildly different.

[JNAProductions]

As an example of this that is not race-related, take a look at the Beastmaster Ranger.

There will come a time when D&D players will think of the Beastmaster as a type of summoner class, and will not know that it originated as a ranger that perfected the bond between ranger and beast, to the point that they were as one and fought alongside each other.

Instead, it is a class that can casually pull spirits and form them into animal bodies. And it can swap these spirit forms each day, and summon a new one if it dies. Something like like a conjurer or necromancer than what a beastmaster was originally intended to be.

Everyone considers the beast spirit alternative option to be superior because the mechanics all check out. But the theme is wildly different.

The issue with this is that original Beastmaster isn't just not optimal, it's either 1) bad or 2) incredibly janky. Or even, 3) both.

OG Beastmaster does NOT give you the feeling you describe. Not for anyone I've ever played with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The issue with this is that original Beastmaster isn't just not optimal, it's either 1) bad or 2) incredibly janky. Or even, 3) both.

OG Beastmaster does NOT give you the feeling you describe. Not for anyone I've ever played with.

Oddly...it has for me and my players. I've had multiple players take it and be totally happy with it. And your objections are purely mechanical. The thematics of the OG Beastmaster are, if not great, at least passible. It's mechanical implementation was kinda janky, to be sure, for those seeking to push for power. But the feeling, for those not attuned to optimization, was actually pretty much spot on.

[JNAProductions]

Oddly...it has for me and my players. I've had multiple players take it and be totally happy with it. And your objections are purely mechanical. The thematics of the OG Beastmaster are, if not great, at least passible. It's mechanical implementation was kinda janky, to be sure, for those seeking to push for power. But the feeling, for those not attuned to optimization, was actually pretty much spot on.

So they don't mind that your loyal companion can't attack unless you tell it to, every single turn?

That's a big thing-it's not an independent creature. It's 100% an extension of your PC, in the worst possible way. Not as "The two creatures act seamlessly as one unit" but "They're basically one creature, what with needing one to spend an action to have the other do anything besides walk around".

If the mechanics lacking don't bother you, that's fine. Enjoy it-and I do mean this sincerely. But for a lot of people, the mechanics did NOT represent the theme well, and were generally found wanting from a power perspective too.

For what it's worth, I also don't like Hexblade much. It's theming could've been cool, but as executed, it's not particularly thematic. Just powerful.

[Dr.Samurai]

I was just speaking to theme though. There is a universe in which the OG Battlemaster could have been revised and kept the theme of person forming unbreakable bond with animal. Butthe focus was purely on mechanics, and so they improved the mechanics, but at the cost of the theme.

I agree as well that the thematics for Hexblade are sorely lacking.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So they don't mind that your loyal companion can't attack unless you tell it to, every single turn?

That's a big thing-it's not an independent creature. It's 100% an extension of your PC, in the worst possible way. Not as "The two creatures act seamlessly as one unit" but "They're basically one creature, what with needing one to spend an action to have the other do anything besides walk around".

If the mechanics lacking don't bother you, that's fine. Enjoy it-and I do mean this sincerely. But for a lot of people, the mechanics did NOT represent the theme well, and were generally found wanting from a power perspective too.

For what it's worth, I also don't like Hexblade much. It's theming could've been cool, but as executed, it's not particularly thematic. Just powerful.

That's purely mechanical. And I already said that the mechanics needed some use. But the players that used it found the theme interesting.

Not all players demand perfect mechanics. For many of them, having a pet was good enough. A bunch of them didn't even send their pet into combat (preferring to use it for other purposes). Were they giving up a bunch of potential power? Sure. But they didn't care, because they weren't optimizers.

That's my whole point. If mechanical power/"smoothness" is the most important thing, then thematics fall by the wayside. Inherently--you can't have more than one "most important thing" by definition. And once mechanical power is the most important thing, homogenization is the inevitable result.

I was just speaking to theme though. There is a universe in which the OG Battlemaster could have been revised and kept the theme of person forming unbreakable bond with animal. Butthe focus was purely on mechanics, and so they improved the mechanics, but at the cost of the theme.

I agree as well that the thematics for Hexblade are sorely lacking.

Dr Samurai said it more tersely and I agree with him.

Hexblade is lacking both mechanically (too strong in many obviously breakable ways) AND thematically (ie not having a coherent theme).

[KorvinStarmast]

The fundamental problem is the emphasis on mechanical optimization. As long as that's the focus, the only possible outcome is homogenization and only cosmetic differences.

Bounded accuracy was supposed to take the edge off of this, but optimizers are gonna optimize.

As an example of this that is not race-related, take a look at the Beastmaster Ranger.

All it needed was to use a BA not an A to direct the attack (like the artificer and its pet) to make it a little less clunky.

So they don't mind that your loyal companion can't attack unless you tell it to, every single turn?

Yeah, that is jarring when we look at the thematics of that Ranger concept.

For what it's worth, I also don't like Hexblade much. It's theming could've been cool, but as executed, it's not particularly thematic.

We have an accord, although my core objection to the thematics is likely different from yours.

[NichG]

Optimization doesn't have to mean that things get pigeonholed into single best combinations for each niche. There are a number of ways to have diversity and optimization coexist. Distinct niches is one such way, yes. Another way is for the location of the optimum to vary from player to player due to external factors - for instance, to have a diverse set of options that impact the form of the mental effort and the best ways of thinking needed to play the character optimally, so each player will find that they require a different build in order to achieve optimal performance. I'll again beat the drum of 'design things using incomparables, not using numbers that just add together into a bottleneck that has a very simple play form'. Another thing that can be done is to create large neutral spaces where continuing to improve something starts to have literally zero effect on certain things (sort of like how the maximum strength that would impact damage with a bow gets capped based on the bow or how armor determined a maximum effective dexterity modifier, but apply the principle more broadly).

Also, as far as theme versus mechanics, I think forcing players to bear the burden of dissonance is design to be avoided. It's like having a CPU fan that clicks or whines. Sure it still works almost as well, but its constantly reminding you of that bit of jank. So to that end I'd say things which mean to be different should be mechanically different, if nothing else just to not give the idea that some parts of the book are just empty words.

So, off the top of my head:

Spoiler: Big list of changes to stats to improve build diversity

Show

Make racial modifiers to stats rarer, but generally larger when they're present. However, make it so that racial modifiers to stats do not change the number in place, but instead have two effects: the first is to change the upper and lower limits of how the stat can be raised (and how high it must be at character creation at minimum). The second is that positive modifiers represent the minimum numerical value allowed on any d20 roll involving that stat - if a race gets a +2 to Strength, 1s and 2s are treated as 3s; if a race gets -2 to Strength, 19s and 20s are treated as 18s. This does mean that having a positive modifier, at minimum, makes it impossible to critically fail and a negative modifier makes it impossible to critically succeed.

Reason for this: By modifying the max/min rather than the value directly, we avoid the sense of 'if I take a race with modifiers I don't like, I have to buy it off, so its a worse choice' - this makes the differences more neutral when they don't matter or when you don't intend to buy things up to very large values. Also, with bounded accuracy, being able to break 20 on a stat is big but its big in a specific way that is mostly orthogonal to class features. Going to play into this further as we go...

Modification 2: Remove all stat dependence of to-hit rolls - hand back any necessary attack scaling as level-based bonuses conditional on proficiency and reduction of ACs. Save DCs are no longer set by class-specific stats, but are always determined by Intelligence. Stats now do the following things in addition to modifying checks.

Strength scales carry capacity, negates armor check penalties 1-for-1 when positive, allows a character's attacks to (at their option) shift their target back 5ft per point of Strength modifier advantage they possess which fully interrupts movement on a successful AoO if it applies, and determines the minimum value (when positive) or maximum value (when negative) that any rolled damage dice can show at a 2-for-1 rate (+1 modifier means 1s and 2s are treated as 3, etc). Yes, now wizard spell damage scales off of Strength up to a point and Muscle Wizard can be a thing. Change around the damage dice of weapons - make bludgeoning weapons favor having multiple dice, heavy edged weapons stay as having individual larger dice, maybe make unarmed use multiple larger dice with a default negative modifier, etc. Why do it this way? Flat modifiers will get eaten up in dice-pool-damage stuff like spellcasters tend to use, but making it a modifier-per-die makes the scaling too much stronger (quadratic because of caster-level interactions). Binding the maximum average improvement to dice size means that there's a neutral space where higher strength doesn't continue to help you.

Dexterity modifier improves AC. It also increases the critical threat range on all attacks at a 1-per-modifier rate if positive, and if negative increases the critical failure range on attacks instead. Furthermore, for every positive point of Dexterity modifier, 5ft of movement can be interleaved simultaneously with any action that would normally have to happen distinct from movement actions - basically a scaling free Spring Attack equivalent that works for spells and other such things as well. This interleaved movement comes out of the character's normal movement per round, its not additional. Why? Casters who use touch attacks will benefit from the crit range so its relevant to them; establishes a thematically different fighting style that would still be viable for straight up Fighter types as an alternative for going Strength. Both Strength and Dexterity now scale damage, but in different ways, and in a way such that they multiply with each-other if you manage to have both - so getting 'even a little' dexterity if you already have strength is worth it. The movement effect creates a practical difference in play between a strength fighter and a dexterity fighter.

Constitution is relevant to all characters already, no change.

Intelligence now modifies the save DC of all effects a character produces from their own abilities or skills that require an enemy to make a saving throw, rather than this being a class-specific stat. Furthermore, for positive effects whose duration is multiple rounds, the duration is increased by 1 round per point of Intelligence modifier (decreased if negative). Similarly, for durations in minutes, and hours, increase/decrease accordingly. This can not bring the duration of an effect to zero.

Wisdom: Whenever a character is under an ongoing negative effect whose remaining duration is in rounds - spell, status condition, physical impediment, whatever, as long as it has less than a minute of natural duration remaining - each round at the start of their turn the character can make a Wisdom check against DC 15 to immediately end the effect upon them. This can be done against only one effect per turn, of the player's choice. Wisdom also provides the ability to exclude one 5ft square per point of modifier from any of a character's AoEs, and increases the number of allowed targets for pick-multiple-target types of abilities by 1 per Wisdom modifier (with negative modifiers decreasing this, to a minimum of 1).

Charisma: Charisma now determines a character's compatibility with magical items. A character can simultaneously safely bear a maximum number of pieces of magical gear, wondrous items, and wands up to a limit of 5 + Charisma modifier. Potions and scrolls do not count against this limit.

Spoiler: Racial features as Incomparables

Show

Elves, Dwarves, Elan, ...:
- Increased life expectancy: this is IMO one of the biggest existential things about many non-human kinds in D&D - it should be viable to adventure with someone in their fourth century. How to square this with character level is complicated. Idea: Professional Hobbyist - for every century of age, a character may have an additional character class which they have explored, mastered, and afterwards mostly forgotten. Should something from one of these forgotten classes come up, the character has the same degree of academic familiarity with the details of that class as if they were a member of the class, even if they have lost the ability to execute those details. Furthermore, this familiarity is sufficient to meet the prerequisites for using scrolls, wands, or magic items. Once per century, a character may voluntarily abandon their current class, beginning on a new path from Lv1, and placing their old class in the familiarity pool - upon doing so, if they continue to adventure in a high-stakes environment, they catch up at four times the normal rate. Optionally make it even better and let a character qualify for prerequisites for other classes using stuff in their abandoned pool...

Sensory modalities:
- Darkvision (yeah yeah...)
- See Emotional Auras: Both reading emotions of creatures, but also detecting if a location was the site of strongly emotionally resonant events.
- See Disharmonies: Is something wrong with this scene? Are two things being presented as one? Stuff jumps out to this character's eyes
- Hear the Music: Imagine if the game had a soundtrack informing the nature of a given scene - the character perceives that sort of 'how does what is going on relate to me' at a deep level. Could go meta with this and make it literal, or just a metaphor...
- Sense Weal or Woe: Before embarking on an action, if that action could lead to the character themselves receiving great harm or being killed, they have a literal sense for it. Basically automatic trap detection so long as the trap would target them, but also things like 'could this guy's full attack down me?' in fights
- See Magic: Identify magic items by sight and study, trace the physical flows of spell effects and enchantments, etc
- See Tipping Points: Maybe something for species shaped by chaos? Automatically have a sense for linch-pin things in an environment or in a broader strategic sense. If one person's life or death would send a kingdom on a new path, they literally glow to this character.

Existential variations:
- This species has a distributed 'self' and individual bodies are just interfaces with the world
- This species subordinates elements of its cognition to other members of the species, like permanently going around with Cyrano de Bergerac whispering in your ear perhaps, or being something like being able to borrow skill trainings or things like that from the hive mind. May be 'fast'/psionic connections, but could also literally require reporting to a hive queen to offload your memories and have them get processed once a week.
- An individual of this species is actually formed of multiple identifiable subunits that can bud off and exist autonomously. Like being a black pudding hit by an edged weapon - lose a hand, gain a brother.

Could do more, but have to go...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Optimization doesn't have to mean that things get pigeonholed into single best combinations for each niche. There are a number of ways to have diversity and optimization coexist. Distinct niches is one such way, yes. Another way is for the location of the optimum to vary from player to player due to external factors - for instance, to have a diverse set of options that impact the form of the mental effort and the best ways of thinking needed to play the character optimally, so each player will find that they require a different build in order to achieve optimal performance. I'll again beat the drum of 'design things using incomparables, not using numbers that just add together into a bottleneck that has a very simple play form'. Another thing that can be done is to create large neutral spaces where continuing to improve something starts to have literally zero effect on certain things (sort of like how the maximum strength that would impact damage with a bow gets capped based on the bow or how armor determined a maximum effective dexterity modifier, but apply the principle more broadly).

Also, as far as theme versus mechanics, I think forcing players to bear the burden of dissonance is design to be avoided. It's like having a CPU fan that clicks or whines. Sure it still works almost as well, but its constantly reminding you of that bit of jank. So to that end I'd say things which mean to be different should be mechanically different, if nothing else just to not give the idea that some parts of the book are just empty words.

So, off the top of my head:

Spoiler: Big list of changes to stats to improve build diversity

Show

Make racial modifiers to stats rarer, but generally larger when they're present. However, make it so that racial modifiers to stats do not change the number in place, but instead have two effects: the first is to change the upper and lower limits of how the stat can be raised (and how high it must be at character creation at minimum). The second is that positive modifiers represent the minimum numerical value allowed on any d20 roll involving that stat - if a race gets a +2 to Strength, 1s and 2s are treated as 3s; if a race gets -2 to Strength, 19s and 20s are treated as 18s. This does mean that having a positive modifier, at minimum, makes it impossible to critically fail and a negative modifier makes it impossible to critically succeed.

Reason for this: By modifying the max/min rather than the value directly, we avoid the sense of 'if I take a race with modifiers I don't like, I have to buy it off, so its a worse choice' - this makes the differences more neutral when they don't matter or when you don't intend to buy things up to very large values. Also, with bounded accuracy, being able to break 20 on a stat is big but its big in a specific way that is mostly orthogonal to class features. Going to play into this further as we go...

Modification 2: Remove all stat dependence of to-hit rolls - hand back any necessary attack scaling as level-based bonuses conditional on proficiency and reduction of ACs. Save DCs are no longer set by class-specific stats, but are always determined by Intelligence. Stats now do the following things in addition to modifying checks.

Strength scales carry capacity, negates armor check penalties 1-for-1 when positive, allows a character's attacks to (at their option) shift their target back 5ft per point of Strength modifier advantage they possess which fully interrupts movement on a successful AoO if it applies, and determines the minimum value (when positive) or maximum value (when negative) that any rolled damage dice can show at a 2-for-1 rate (+1 modifier means 1s and 2s are treated as 3, etc). Yes, now wizard spell damage scales off of Strength up to a point and Muscle Wizard can be a thing. Change around the damage dice of weapons - make bludgeoning weapons favor having multiple dice, heavy edged weapons stay as having individual larger dice, maybe make unarmed use multiple larger dice with a default negative modifier, etc. Why do it this way? Flat modifiers will get eaten up in dice-pool-damage stuff like spellcasters tend to use, but making it a modifier-per-die makes the scaling too much stronger (quadratic because of caster-level interactions). Binding the maximum average improvement to dice size means that there's a neutral space where higher strength doesn't continue to help you.

Dexterity modifier improves AC. It also increases the critical threat range on all attacks at a 1-per-modifier rate if positive, and if negative increases the critical failure range on attacks instead. Furthermore, for every positive point of Dexterity modifier, 5ft of movement can be interleaved simultaneously with any action that would normally have to happen distinct from movement actions - basically a scaling free Spring Attack equivalent that works for spells and other such things as well. This interleaved movement comes out of the character's normal movement per round, its not additional. Why? Casters who use touch attacks will benefit from the crit range so its relevant to them; establishes a thematically different fighting style that would still be viable for straight up Fighter types as an alternative for going Strength. Both Strength and Dexterity now scale damage, but in different ways, and in a way such that they multiply with each-other if you manage to have both - so getting 'even a little' dexterity if you already have strength is worth it. The movement effect creates a practical difference in play between a strength fighter and a dexterity fighter.

Constitution is relevant to all characters already, no change.

Intelligence now modifies the save DC of all effects a character produces from their own abilities or skills that require an enemy to make a saving throw, rather than this being a class-specific stat. Furthermore, for positive effects whose duration is multiple rounds, the duration is increased by 1 round per point of Intelligence modifier (decreased if negative). Similarly, for durations in minutes, and hours, increase/decrease accordingly. This can not bring the duration of an effect to zero.

Wisdom: Whenever a character is under an ongoing negative effect whose remaining duration is in rounds - spell, status condition, physical impediment, whatever, as long as it has less than a minute of natural duration remaining - each round at the start of their turn the character can make a Wisdom check against DC 15 to immediately end the effect upon them. This can be done against only one effect per turn, of the player's choice. Wisdom also provides the ability to exclude one 5ft square per point of modifier from any of a character's AoEs, and increases the number of allowed targets for pick-multiple-target types of abilities by 1 per Wisdom modifier (with negative modifiers decreasing this, to a minimum of 1).

Charisma: Charisma now determines a character's compatibility with magical items. A character can simultaneously safely bear a maximum number of pieces of magical gear, wondrous items, and wands up to a limit of 5 + Charisma modifier. Potions and scrolls do not count against this limit.

Spoiler: Racial features as Incomparables

Show

Elves, Dwarves, Elan, ...:
- Increased life expectancy: this is IMO one of the biggest existential things about many non-human kinds in D&D - it should be viable to adventure with someone in their fourth century. How to square this with character level is complicated. Idea: Professional Hobbyist - for every century of age, a character may have an additional character class which they have explored, mastered, and afterwards mostly forgotten. Should something from one of these forgotten classes come up, the character has the same degree of academic familiarity with the details of that class as if they were a member of the class, even if they have lost the ability to execute those details. Furthermore, this familiarity is sufficient to meet the prerequisites for using scrolls, wands, or magic items. Once per century, a character may voluntarily abandon their current class, beginning on a new path from Lv1, and placing their old class in the familiarity pool - upon doing so, if they continue to adventure in a high-stakes environment, they catch up at four times the normal rate. Optionally make it even better and let a character qualify for prerequisites for other classes using stuff in their abandoned pool...

Sensory modalities:
- Darkvision (yeah yeah...)
- See Emotional Auras: Both reading emotions of creatures, but also detecting if a location was the site of strongly emotionally resonant events.
- See Disharmonies: Is something wrong with this scene? Are two things being presented as one? Stuff jumps out to this character's eyes
- Hear the Music: Imagine if the game had a soundtrack informing the nature of a given scene - the character perceives that sort of 'how does what is going on relate to me' at a deep level. Could go meta with this and make it literal, or just a metaphor...
- Sense Weal or Woe: Before embarking on an action, if that action could lead to the character themselves receiving great harm or being killed, they have a literal sense for it. Basically automatic trap detection so long as the trap would target them, but also things like 'could this guy's full attack down me?' in fights
- See Magic: Identify magic items by sight and study, trace the physical flows of spell effects and enchantments, etc
- See Tipping Points: Maybe something for species shaped by chaos? Automatically have a sense for linch-pin things in an environment or in a broader strategic sense. If one person's life or death would send a kingdom on a new path, they literally glow to this character.

Existential variations:
- This species has a distributed 'self' and individual bodies are just interfaces with the world
- This species subordinates elements of its cognition to other members of the species, like permanently going around with Cyrano de Bergerac whispering in your ear perhaps, or being something like being able to borrow skill trainings or things like that from the hive mind. May be 'fast'/psionic connections, but could also literally require reporting to a hive queen to offload your memories and have them get processed once a week.
- An individual of this species is actually formed of multiple identifiable subunits that can bud off and exist autonomously. Like being a black pudding hit by an edged weapon - lose a hand, gain a brother.

Could do more, but have to go...

Yes, if you completely overhaul the entire core system, you can do it. But that's not a minor thing. You're talking about fundamentally a completely different game with completely different points of failure and loopholes. Because those points of failure will still exist--they always do once people start pushing on things. All that changes is exactly where and how far they have to push. And generally more "tightly connected" systems fail earlier when pushed.

The current system works beautifully as long as you respect its boundaries. And the failures are almost entirely not system failures--they're mindset failures. Like seeing "not at the absolute highest number" as identical to "have a permanent penalty". Which no amount of tweaking can remove.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes, if you completely overhaul the entire core system, you can do it. But that's not a minor thing. You're talking about fundamentally a completely different game with completely different points of failure and loopholes. Because those points of failure will still exist--they always do once people start pushing on things. All that changes is exactly where and how far they have to push. And generally more "tightly connected" systems fail earlier when pushed.

The current system works beautifully as long as you respect its boundaries. And the failures are almost entirely not system failures--they're mindset failures. Like seeing "not at the absolute highest number" as identical to "have a permanent penalty". Which no amount of tweaking can remove.

In our Tomb of Annihilation campaign, our Tabaxi Nature cleric started with a 15 wisdom. We were not harmed by this. Had a good old time before RL bit us in the Scheduling butt.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In our Tomb of Annihilation campaign, our Tabaxi Nature cleric started with a 15 wisdom. We were not harmed by this. Had a good old time before RL bit us in the Scheduling butt.

In my in-person campaign (the one where I'm a player), my bard started with 15 CHA.

In my in-person campaign where I'm a DM, several of the characters started at 14 or 15 in their main stat.

Everything is going fine with them.

[Segev]

The goblin's bonus action ability is a good example. It overlaps heavily with rogue, meaning that, ironically, goblins are worse rogues than literally any other race. Moreover, if you play a goblin wizard, and you didn't want to play a Dex-high, stealth-trained background, the ability is significantly less useful to you. Which means that your creativity is being stifled by forcing you to spend a trait on such a useless thing if you don't want to invest even more into it! Clearly, you should be able to play a halfling that LOOKS LIKE a goblin. Maybe a Lightfoot Halfling, for the ability to hide behind larger creatures as that bonus action.

But wait, I want my goblin rogue to have Mage Hand Legerdemain and Psionic Knack. I could multiclass to cleric if I wanted divine magic, so why can't I multi-subclass? Clearly, this is also stifling my creativity, and I should be able to just pick and choose whatever abilities I want. I also don't want to slow down my spellcasting by multiclassing, so my rogue/cleric should be able to give up other features to keep full casting progression while also being a rogue with two subclass abilities from different rogue subclasses.

Once again, if this is what you want? Play BESM or GURPS. BESM is a great game, and GURPS exists. They will let you have your cosmetic race match its actual abilities only and exactly as much as you want, and the same with the job title you assign yourself.

But classes and races exist to create constraints. These don't "stifle" creativity; they invite it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The goblin's bonus action ability is a good example. It overlaps heavily with rogue, meaning that, ironically, goblins are worse rogues than literally any other race. Moreover, if you play a goblin wizard, and you didn't want to play a Dex-high, stealth-trained background, the ability is significantly less useful to you. Which means that your creativity is being stifled by forcing you to spend a trait on such a useless thing if you don't want to invest even more into it! Clearly, you should be able to play a halfling that LOOKS LIKE a goblin. Maybe a Lightfoot Halfling, for the ability to hide behind larger creatures as that bonus action.

But wait, I want my goblin rogue to have Mage Hand Legerdemain and Psionic Knack. I could multiclass to cleric if I wanted divine magic, so why can't I multi-subclass? Clearly, this is also stifling my creativity, and I should be able to just pick and choose whatever abilities I want. I also don't want to slow down my spellcasting by multiclassing, so my rogue/cleric should be able to give up other features to keep full casting progression while also being a rogue with two subclass abilities from different rogue subclasses.

Once again, if this is what you want? Play BESM or GURPS. BESM is a great game, and GURPS exists. They will let you have your cosmetic race match its actual abilities only and exactly as much as you want, and the same with the job title you assign yourself.

But classes and races exist to create constraints. These don't "stifle" creativity; they invite it.

Amen to all of this.

[Hurrashane]

Once again, if this is what you want? Play BESM or GURPS. BESM is a great game, and GURPS exists. They will let you have your cosmetic race match its actual abilities only and exactly as much as you want, and the same with the job title you assign yourself.

Hey, good to see someone else who likes BESM! It's one of my favorite non-D&D systems.

[Segev]

Hey, good to see someone else who likes BESM! It's one of my favorite non-D&D systems.

Mine, too! I don't get to play it much these days, but it is a lot of fun to design characters in. Sometimes fun to try to build restrictions/templates in for setting up structures for a setting, though often I give up on that and just work with players directly if I run a game of it.

[Amnestic]

The goblin's bonus action ability is a good example. It overlaps heavily with rogue, meaning that, ironically, goblins are worse rogues than literally any other race.

Ignoring the mocking tone you've chosen - yes, a goblin racial that is incredibly redundant on their "ideal" class is stupid design. An equivalent might be that high elves get an extra cantrip...but only if you don't play a wizard. Sure, you can certainly still play them, but your racial feature being made redundant by a thematically appropriate class is stupid. It's bad design.

Nimble Escape being made redundant by being a rogue isn't "inviting creativity".

But classes and races exist to create constraints. These don't "stifle" creativity; they invite it.

Well maybe you shouldn't even be able to get any ability score improvements at all. Maybe every race should have absolutely set stats from level 1 and they can't be improved by leveling up. Such constraints surely wouldn't stifle creativity at all, they would invite it, no?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ignoring the mocking tone you've chosen - yes, a goblin racial that is incredibly redundant on their "ideal" class is stupid design. An equivalent might be that high elves get an extra cantrip...but only if you don't play a wizard. Sure, you can certainly still play them, but your racial feature being made redundant by a thematically appropriate class is stupid. It's bad design.

Nimble Escape being made redundant by being a rogue isn't "inviting creativity".

Which proves the point. If you want the features to be the primary distinguishing factors for a race, then you have to make features that work equally well for every possible combination of race and class while not overlapping with any.

Well maybe you shouldn't even be able to get any ability score improvements at all. Maybe every race should have absolutely set stats from level 1 and they can't be improved by leveling up. Such constraints surely wouldn't stifle creativity at all, they would invite it, no?

Actually, the system would work pretty much ok with that, assuming you slightly altered the stat arrays. And you know what? The game would work just fine.

Stat boosts are useful, not necessary.

[Amnestic]

Which proves the point. If you want the features to be the primary distinguishing factors for a race, then you have to make features that work equally well for every possible combination of race and class while not overlapping with any.

In the context of idealised game design sure.
In the context of removing racial ASIs? Not even slightly, no.

Prior to Tasha's (which as a reminder was over two years ago now) there were "optimal" races and "suboptimal" races for certain builds, due to both their features and the ASIs - though notably ASIs generally played the biggest part in this.
Post-Tasha's this remains the same - there are optimal and suboptimal choices. Some of these have changed - bringing the less-great up, and the best down - and some have not (Vhumans are still amazing).

Actually, the system would work pretty much ok with that, assuming you slightly altered the stat arrays. And you know what? The game would work just fine.

Stat boosts are useful, not necessary.

I didn't comment on if the game would work "fine". I said that it would "invite creativity" - sarcastically, mind you. I do not believe that for a moment and think it would actively do the opposite by pigeonholing people, but it is objectively a constraint, that you supposedly believe would invite such creativity.

[Segev]

Ignoring the mocking tone you've chosen - yes, a goblin racial that is incredibly redundant on their "ideal" class is stupid design. An equivalent might be that high elves get an extra cantrip...but only if you don't play a wizard. Sure, you can certainly still play them, but your racial feature being made redundant by a thematically appropriate class is stupid. It's bad design.

The part you quoted here wasn't said mockingly. It is a legitimate problem. Much like the dwarven armor and weapon proficiencies making them lose out on racial features if they go for the classes iconic to dwarves that make those racial proficiencies a thing.

It's one of the problems with putting everything onto traits: they're already prone to awkward or outright bad design. This doesn't mean they can't be done well. It just means that you need to pay much more attention and give much more care to exactly what they do and don't synergize with, what htey do and don't incentivize in build choices to go along with them, etc.

One of the beauties of racial stat bonuses is that they're only "useless" if you work to make them so. Again, for point-buy, I do think the bonuses need to be converted to +4 points and +2 points for +2 and +1 to stats, respectively. But in all of these cases, even if you dump the boosted stat, they lead to you having more middling or even higher than middling stats where you dumped them, encouraging you to build your character to perhaps take some advantage of that. Or, if not, you still HAVE it, so your halfling druid actually is more nimble than someone else's human fighter might be.

Nimble Escape being made redundant by being a rogue isn't "inviting creativity".

Indeed not. But having a +2 to strength when you're playing a sorcerer can and does. And, again, you can play a fighter with a 14 strength or a bard with a 14 charisma just fine in 5e, and no lack of a +2 to a stat mod will keep you from hitting that "minimum."

Well maybe you shouldn't even be able to get any ability score improvements at all. Maybe every race should have absolutely set stats from level 1 and they can't be improved by leveling up. Such constraints surely wouldn't stifle creativity at all, they would invite it, no?

There's a difference between "here is your character; you will play him," and "here are some rules about how you may build your character; let's see what you do with it." Just as there's a difference between "here's a completed picture. Isn't it lovely?" and "here's a list of elements to work into your art; let's see what you can make of it." The latter is what I believe is useful for D&D. If you prefer the totally blank canvas with no rules, I suggest BESM or GURPS or some other point-based system that ties zero mechanics to in-setting lore, leaving that linkage and all cosmetics to the player and GM. Trying to make D&D into that is a doomed effort; it ceases to be D&D.

That said, having fixed stats once you've created your character IS viable. Bounded accuracy assumes that most of your ability scores won't change, and that in many cases you'll be rolling saves on a raw ability score.

Does it invite creativity? Possibly. Where the restrictions that I am defending and you (apparently, by your arguments) want to take away do is encourage thought as to how to build a different kind of character based on having different strengths and weaknesses. Ones inherent in the choices you're making.

Rather than having Elf Bard being built more or less exactly the same as Gnome Bard and Orc Bard and Human Bard, the differences in where their stat bonuses go and what racial traits they have will encourage different build designs.

My drow druid would actually be trying to lean more into charisma if the table I'm at didn't use TCE optional rules (because while I don't like them, I'm way too much of an optimizer not to take advantage of them if they're what I'm told are on the table). Instead, he has an 8. Where he does lean into things differently is that he's fascinated by spiders, and he focuses on using his drow magics (despite the crappy save DCs) to a greater extent, playing like a gish rogue, almost, more than a druid (though he gets a lot of mileage out of wild shape for sneaking around). With the base drow statline, his Wisdom would be lower, and I'd be looking at more physical attacks for longer because he also is good with daggers. They're currently his primary attack, and might be for longer as it would take longer to raise his Wisdom.

None of this is a complaint; the drow is a lot of fun to play. But, frankly, if I were adhering to the TCE philosophy, I would be trying to talk my DM itno letting me use Wisdom for his drow magics, too, because it's obviously "punishing me" for playing a non-charisma caster as a drow to have their save DCs be as low as they are.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: closed for review