Results 181 to 210 of 284
-
2023-02-04, 07:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
I mean, even if you want to do things via stats, there are a lot of other ways to implement stat affinity than modifiers that you couldn't just buy your way out of. For example, automatic advantage on skill checks involving the favored stat and automatic disadvantage on skill checks involving the disfavored stat, but things like attack rolls are left alone. If you've got automatic disadvantage, then even if you raise that stat to a 20 you're going to be a different 20 than someone without that; if you've got automatic advantage, even if you dumpstat to an 8, you're still going to be more consistent than someone without it. Or as a less potent effect, rolls with favored stats have a higher minimum value on the d20 and rolls with disfavored stats have a higher critical failure range. Or getting more interesting, change what stats mean - ability to treat the results of Strength checks to jump as double, ability to make a free Dexterity check each round in order to move an extra 10ft in a given round, ability to gain extra uses of per-long-rest/per-day abilities from Constitution modifier if positive, etc.
-
2023-02-04, 07:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
It depends on what you think of as encounter design functioning normally.
If you take that medium encounters should be the norm, and to never use a higher CR monster than the level of the party, then challenge will need to be upped.
If your of the mind that easy and medium encounters are, at best, meant to cause HP damage that may or may not require healing resources. And deadly is meant to be used to provide significant challenge to the party.
20 by 8 is perfectly fine, and should be mildly expected (feats being used, likely will push this down).
Both are given as system expectations in the DMG for encounter design, so dealers choice.
I have personally found the system structures are generally fine with hitting 20 by level 4, and 20 doesn't cause system distress at any level of play (probably why its the cap).
Note if you use the dmg encounter rules as written, you could probably have a party with a stat ceiling of 8 and be fine, it is very conservative in terms of challenge.My sig is something witty.
78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.
-
2023-02-04, 11:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
- Location
- Somewhere
- Gender
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
Sure. You can be a runt for an orc or a half-orc. But, by nature of NOT being human, even a runt of an orc is still stronger than a human who grew under the same circumstances, and possibly just as strong as an average human, especially if you aren't rolling and the worse base value you can get is 8.
Of course, if you're rolling for stats, you can be weaker than average human even with +2 Str, but I wouldn't be surprised if rolling for stats was reduced to a variant in D&Done or even removed as an option.
20 at any level puts you above the curve, it's NEVER expected by the system, but it's not gamebreaking.It's Eberron, not ebberon.
It's not high magic, it's wide magic.
And it's definitely not steampunk. The only time steam gets involved is when the fire and water elementals break loose.
-
2023-02-04, 11:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Location
- Saint Louis
- Gender
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
Seems like a lot of effort to say "play my way or get out".
I think adventurers, heroes and villains, are assumed by the base game to be rare among most settings so having a player with a halfling that starts with a 16 or 18 Strength easily, fits right in with that idea.
It's not that every halfling can be that strong, but a PC halfling? Certainly.
Honestly, for years now, I've been thinking of just scrapping the idea of race/species and just letting it be a "pick X number of features, tell me what your race is".
Like, have three columns you get a racial feature from each of the columns so you can mix and match whatever you want.5e e10
Class Progression (Ver. 1.1-ish)
The Cleric
The Fighter
The Rogue
The Wizard
Character Progression
Psionic Sub-classes
Races
Humans
Crossbreeds
-
2023-02-05, 01:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
Sure. If you and your group are happy with cardboard settings. Whatever floats your boat. But as for me and mine, no thanks.
I don't really care about racial modifiers. I'm slightly in their favor, but only slightly. I don't think they're as important on either side as people make them out to be, and I think they add a small amount of flavor. So yeah. Not worth redoing.
That said, I am very strongly on favor of racial restrictions (restricting the set of playable races) and strong racial features and archetyping. The set of races and how they're part of the setting is a huge chunk of world building. Which is very firmly in the DM's, not the player's, hands. So I'm even more opposed to build a bear races than I am even build a bear classes, which I dislike quite a bit.Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2023-02-05, 03:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Belgium
- Gender
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
quite true, but *point to post 1* that doesn't have to be the case. That's a game design choice.
And likewise, as we've seen with Tasha (where suddenly the free-armor-proficiency dwarves have better features for wizard then yet-another-cantrip - high elves) this isn't an ability score problem - it's an ability problem.
And I don't disagree with you on that. But I'm talking about Tasha. To quote
if you're a dwarf, your Constitution increases by 2, because dwarf heroes in D&D are often exceptionally tough
Exceptionally tough... compared to whom? if Dwarf commoners get +2 Con, these dwarf hero's would not be exceptionally though - they would be normal. While a dwarf that took +2 Dex instead would be both an exceptionally dexterious dwarf, and weak (as they lack the +2 CON that dwarf commoners have)
I know, and yet
- You previously lauded the fact that golaiths get an ability that increases their carrying capacity.
- You're against elves having the get +2 DEX - even if pointed out that this would have different game mechanical effects then the current rules.
That does not make sense to me. Carrying capacity is ALSO a number you know. Why do think one is bad and the other isn't?
Quite true. But that's not a standard. Not always.
When the rest of the people on the table blame you for the TPK, as you're playing a int 15 wizard, they're not saying not saying the character isn't viable - they are saying they feel the character isn't pulling it's weight.
(and mind you - I'm someone who does maths for a hobby: I'm no saying they are neccecairy right. Psychology and maths are not the same thing)
---------------------------
... Oh, and some food for thought : who is the guy in your party that has the best chance to (nonmagically) seduce the princes?
Spoilerthe orc warlock of course*
* if he's the only charisma based character of the partyYes, tabaxi grappler. It's a thing
RFC1925: With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea.
Alucard (TFS): I do things. I take very enthusiastic walks through the woods
Math Rule of thumb: 1/X chance : There's about a 2/3 of it happening at least once in X tries
Actually, "(e-1)/e for a limit to infinitiy", but, it's a good rule of thumb
-
2023-02-05, 03:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2018
- Location
- Tuscany, Italy
- Gender
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
Maybe because the latter makes the character unequivocally better at insert class than others, via a gap than can always be closed with enough training (completely invalidating the idea of the elves in the top curve being more dexterous than other races), assuming another race spends an extra ASI that the elf can instead invest in anything else, turning that supposedly thematic Dex gap into something else entirely with no relation to the races in question.
Last edited by Captain Cap; 2023-02-05 at 03:20 AM.
-
2023-02-05, 06:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
If I'm creating a Half Orc Necro and intentionally don't make him as good at casting as I could, then as I understand/perceive/play that character, then he didn't put his all in that, there were choices when he went for something else. Then while he could tell others he did his best to be the greatest necro he could, he'd feel that's not true, he could've been a better Necro had he put himself to it, its not the same character.
And that's exactly why not having a +2 in your main stat is unimportant at the end of the day.
Btw, I mostly agree with your second sentence, optimization and good character do not necessarily go hand in hand, but I'd say the process of optimization can often help with the conceptualization of the character
Spoiler: ExampleI'm gonna be a shuriken throwing ninja that's secretly a noble, how could I go about this?
I'm gonna have to somehow eventually get magic weaponry, I could go Artificer or Art2/Fighter... Batman? Maybe Shadow Monk/Artificer, BATMAN!
Or maybe go for Kensei's magic weaponry instead of having gadgets? Maybe even cause he rejected gadgets? Or look for something else?
Well, now I'm making important decisions about my character that help refine the original idea.
The thing is, I completely reject the notion that a character is anything less than capable because they don't have a +2 in their main stat*. Of course my experience playing is very limited compared to the totality of the playerbase, but with some 15-20 different DMs almost all of them adjust the encounters after the first couple adventures to be challenging to the party whatever the power of the party is, if they find the party is bodying everything in its path in the first couple adventures, they will start crankin up the difficulty, and if the party is getting bodied regularly, either the DM is going for that for some reason, or they will tone down encounters a bit.
You could say that they'll be weaker than the other members of the party, and that may very well be the case, but I think that depends much more on the respective builds, is the pre Tasha Half Orc Gloomstalker "weaker" than the Lightfoot Halfling Thief whose racials are tailor made for the class? Well, that will depend on the situation, in most combats I'd expect the Gloomstalker to deliver more damage.
*Maybe in a niche build where the character has a lot of requirements and none align with their racials, like a point buy Rock Gnome Paladin/Ranger (13/15/11+1/8+2/13/13), this would likely be less powerful than the average party members, but its mostly because of the rest of the build, a Half-Elf looks better but it has likely the best statline for something like this (13/15+1/12/8/13+1/12+2), the +1 in Wis could go someplace else for a half feat later on like Res(Con) or something.
What does "expected by the system" even mean? That the character can go thru the daily combat budget 95% of the time?Last edited by Rukelnikov; 2023-02-05 at 06:22 AM.
-
2023-02-05, 09:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2018
- Location
- Tuscany, Italy
- Gender
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
There doesn't need to be a correspondence between player and character's choices: I can choose my character to be naturally blonde, 2 meters tall etc. things that would be outside the realm of choices of the character itself. Does my half orc start with a 14 in Str instead of 16? Perhaps he was born scrawnier than most. Does he have 10 in Int instead of 14? He may not be as gifted as others, needing to spend much more time and effort to get to the same level, even if he puts his all in it.
-
2023-02-05, 09:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Location
- Saint John, NB
- Gender
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
Key word in the quote is "often". But even still, if you're a hill dwarf you have more HP than non-dwarves with the same con. Dwarf commoners would have 5hp, even a dwarf wizard with a 10 con is tougher than that.
But again, the key word is "often", usually dwarf heroes are exceptionally tough... But they don't need to be.
-
2023-02-05, 02:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
I didn't "laud" Goliath adventurers having a carrying capacity boost, I just said I was fine with it. If they didn't I wouldn't care either. It's an aspect of the game that ends up being barely consequential at most tables; if you found a similarly inconsequential way to represent elven grace I would evaluate that in similar fashion, but ability scores and modifiers ain't it as Captain Cap stated.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2023-02-05, 04:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
It seems to me that sci fi ttrpgs lean far more heavily into race/ species variety and distinction. Starfinder has such a vast catalog and the differences go so much further than ability scores. Like, some races don't even have limbs or digits. My favorite is the Spathinae. The system does a good job of somehow not going overboard on racial traits, but still backing the narrative with a half dozen characteristics on top of stats.
Another sci fi game, shadowrun, doesn't have an expensive roster of options. In fact, it's more quintessential fantasy than D&D with humans, elves, dwarves, orks, trolls as the main core options. The metatypes, as they're called, open and restrict options. But I bring it up because shadowrun has one of the coolest concepts in the priority system. You have 5 categories during character creation. You have 5 priorities and no repeats. Your metatype will affect your PC more or less depending on what priority you give it. I.e. your dwarfiest dwarf PC will have a A or B metatype priority. For the player that doesn't care or wants to go a different route, they can skip the dwarf perks putting metatype priority low or last.
-
2023-02-05, 05:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
Ability Scores are one of the least unique things about the various species. I think them being made part of Background like the One D&D test has it currently makes the most sense.
The abilities they have are a much better way to make them separate without pidgin-holing them in certain classes and punishing those who want to do something different.Last edited by Envyus; 2023-02-05 at 05:06 PM.
-
2023-02-05, 09:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
I think that this may be better pointed at me. I would actually fit that more as I like powerful build and wouldn't mind seeing more of it, but am pretty fine with +2 strength not being a race thing.
For me it mostly comes to interest.
Ability scores carry some, but not alot of, flavor, and class specific mechanical implications. This means they need to be contained to conform to bounded accuracy. This tends to make ASIs not particularly interesting, and has the tendency of making them unnecessarily restrictive.
Powerful Build is the portion of strength to have the least impact on archetype, but that allows it to be much greater scope (what would your opinion of a race with +15 strength be?). As mentioned it is an area of the game that most hand wave, but as one whose table does not, it has made for some cool moments, (being able to dead lift ~1,200 pounds can dramatically effect approaches to problems).
I generally prefer features to form to the dramatic and alien. Does anyone actually remember that time they didn't miss an attack roll by 1? How about that time you cleared a room of goblins with your dragonborn fire breath?
At least for me, the thing that makes a dragonborn interesting is the dragonbreath, the str and cha bonuses are just fiddling numbers. Now if this was 3.5 where having a +8 strength bonus was just on the table, sure. But 5e isn't equipped to handle that. Given that, I would prefer that races prioritize the features that make them feel unusual, alien, and that change outlooks on problems fundamentally rather than the fiddly numbers.
Kobolds losing sunlight sensitivity and pack tactics, would be an example of a loss of identity for me (culture vs nature is a thing, I personally saw pack tactics as nature in the same way it is for wolves but that is a separate argument), Kobolds loosing the strength penalty barely registester as a change to that identity.My sig is something witty.
78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.
-
2023-02-05, 11:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
First of all, I wasn't talking about your example, I was talking about a monk. A pre-tasha's half orc monk was terrible. 2 AC lower, 25% lower damage. Even with the other racial benefits you just end up being a clutzy weakling.
And that sucks, it makes little sense. Because while Half-orcs are (maybe) supposed to be dumber than humans, it seems really weird to argue that they're clumsier. Because that's the issue, isn't it? "Lack of an ASI" makes you bad at that ability forever. It's impossible to overcome, and its not even an interesting inhibition. It's just mathematically bad.
Meanwhile, you're acting as though the opportunity to play a nonstandard race while still having good stats is somehow ruining your roleplay. lol.
Yeah, precisely. Goliaths having +2 STR makes them feel strong-ish, but not really more strong than a human or half elf or mountain dwarf or Githzerai. Mathematically, they're all basically the same from that POV, while all races that can get a bonus to STR are mathematically WAY stronger than any race that gets no bonus.
But what makes goliaths feel strong, actually, is that they have resistance to cold, stone's endurance, and powerful build. In terms of raw math these features are not all that signficant compared to +2 STR, but from a fluff perspective they're way more unique and compelling.
Less pigeon holing good. More distinct fluff good.
Absolute win.Make Martials CoolAgain.
-
2023-02-05, 11:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
- Location
- Los Angeles
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
This question was directed at Psyren, but as I am also a person who thinks Powerful Build is fine but 5e-style +2 Str mod isn't (either for race or gender), here's why I think that:
Powerful build grants a new feature, but +2 Str changes the cost of an existing feature.
This is a subtle but very important difference from a game design perspective. With Powerful Build, the number of possible flavors actually increases. Now you can be someone who is not merely a person with 20 Str, but *also* Powerful Build.
With +2 Str, on the other hand, the actual amount of feature concepts does not increase -- you're still playing a PC with 8-20 Strength. What happens instead is that if you create 2 characters with 20 Str, they're both equally strong, but the one who didn't play into their race stereotype lost an extra feat in the deal and is underpowered relative to those who *did* play into the stereotype. This is because racial modifiers don't balance out -- for any given 5e class, your primary stat is worth more than your secondary stat is worth more than your tertiary, quaternary, quinary, and senary stats. So if one character gets +2 to primary and -2 to quaternary, that character gets a net positive, while the character who gets +2 to quaternary and -2 to primary gets a net negative. It's objectively inferior. This is especially evident with point buy -- if you get a +2 to a lower priority stat, it'll be worth 2 point buy points. Whereas if you get a +2 to your primary stat, it's worth more than 2 point buy, and might even be worth an ASI besides.
So if we make two characters with the concept "championship level knight" with largely identical capabilities (like Brienne and Jaime) but some designer decides it's a great idea to make Brienne get a Str penalty because she's a girl, then instead of a party with Brienne and Jaime (who are equally capable) you get a party with Jaime and some less capable girl who is not as qualified to be in the party as he is, because she's short a feat.
And why should Brienne be a more expensive character to build than Jaime? Because Brienne is a more unusual example of her gender? Why pay a penalty for unusualness? Usually in game design we cost features by their effectiveness, not their oddness. Why should races or genders be the exception?
Being "more unusual" shouldn't mean being worse.
The kind of character concepts that fixed 5e-style racial modifiers discourage shouldn't be discouraged.Last edited by LudicSavant; 2023-02-06 at 12:59 AM.
-
2023-02-06, 04:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
But, as someone pointed out earlier, the mountain is a more unusual example of his gender (and species) in terms of strength, so he does cost more.
The DnD stats system is based around paying more for having extremely good stats.
Just like in the real world - a woman can run the 100 meters in 11 seconds is in the 100m final at the olympics, a man who runs 110m in 11 seconds is just a fast guy. We celebrate the woman who runs the sub 11 second 100m because she is a more unusual example of her gender than the man who can run the sub 11s 110m. Indeed, she costs (and makes) a lot more than a man of equal speed to sponsor too.Last edited by Liquor Box; 2023-02-06 at 04:27 AM.
-
2023-02-06, 04:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2018
- Location
- Tuscany, Italy
- Gender
-
2023-02-06, 05:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Seoul
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
Now if you want to get really evil do:
1. First choose a race.
2. Roll stats IN ORDER.
That'll get you some characters of the sort you don't see very often.
If you want character creation to be a bit more balanced instead of rolling for stats get 18 numerical playing cards and deal out three to each stat (you can tweak the overall power of each character by doing things like removing 1's and adding more higher number cards).
At the end of the day it's pretty goofy to not have half-orcs be weaker than halflings, but it's ALSO goofy that just about EVERY SINGLE half-orc PC has peak strength, etc. etc. There should be a bit of a bell curve with half-orcs averaging higher than halflings, but instead you get just about every half-orc being a vast mountain of muscle even by half-orc standards etc. etc.
-
2023-02-06, 06:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
- Location
- Los Angeles
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
The reason Gregor should cost more is because he's stronger, not because he's more unusual.
Brienne and Jaime are of equal effectiveness, so should cost the same. Their "unusualness for their gender" should not be a relevant variable to how much their features cost.
Exactly.Last edited by LudicSavant; 2023-02-06 at 06:26 AM.
-
2023-02-06, 06:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
Those are the same things - he is a more extreme example of strength
When you use the word 'should', you are just stating your opinion, not giving a reason for it.
What are your reasons for thinking possibly the strongest woman in the world shouldn't cost as much as possibly the strongest man? Why should absolute strength matter more than how strong they are relative to their species (or gender)?Last edited by Liquor Box; 2023-02-06 at 06:47 AM.
-
2023-02-06, 07:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
This really comes down to two opposing desires:
1) Play any race/species, any class, no difference.
2) Synergistic race/species and class combinations, with good choices and bad choices.
Neither is right or wrong objectively. 5e seems to be leaning towards the former more and more; is this the goal for WotC? Maybe, or maybe they are just bad at accomplishing what the goal is. If this is the goal, then their current approach is not 'broken' - although they could still improve by taking away any unique features that are race/species specific and fully realise that goal.
If this is not their goal, then threads like this may help them (unlikely, but who knows?).
On a side note, this is not a roleplay vs non-roleplay argument. Both paths encourage roleplay in different directions. The first encourages a 'nothing is holding you back' roleplay and if you want to be a Halfling Barbarian pushing back the strongest Half-Orc Barbarian in a contest of strength, then why not? The second encourages a 'working with your strengths and covering your weaknesses' roleplay, where you don't try to win a contest of strength as a Halfing Barbarian against the strongest Half-Orc Barbarian, instead you sneak to the side and stab them. Both paths have their own roleplay - neither is superior objectively. The only issue is that you kind of can't have both - either that Halfling can be as strong as the strongest Half-Orc, or they can't. Either they are forced to work with what they have, or they aren't.
-
2023-02-06, 07:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2018
- Location
- Tuscany, Italy
- Gender
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
They're not, because an unusually weak character does not cost more.
She already gave you a reason, and it's gameplay: the strongest woman in the world shouldn't cost as much as the strongest man because she would have lower in-game benefits than the latter.
Attributes points are not a thing in the real world, the possibility of spending them how you want has no basis in reality or fiction, they are just a game currency that you spend to obtain in-game effects.
-
2023-02-06, 07:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
-
2023-02-06, 07:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2018
- Location
- Tuscany, Italy
- Gender
-
2023-02-06, 07:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
I would still put this as part of the second; the choice will be good or bad depending on your goal for the build. Consider a race that makes melee stronger, and pair this with say the Fighter. Is this a good race and class combination? That depends - do you want to focus on melee or ranged? If the latter, then its bad. If the former, then its good.
Ideally, this should be the case for all race/species and class combinations - all work in some way, but HOW they work makes them good or bad for different builds. The problem here is that this would also require classes can be played in all ways, with feats and subclasses leaning in different directions. Certainly this is the case to some extent, but sometimes there is only say one path for the class that accomplishes this and it just isn't good - which makes the overall race/species and class combination bad even if it synergises.
-
2023-02-06, 10:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
Nobody is advocating for "no difference." Of course different species playing the same class should have differences. And I'd argue that nobody wants there to be "bad choices" either. Some choices being better or worse than others, comparatively, is reasonable - but not being clearly or objectively "bad," there's still a baseline level of effectiveness that every species should be able to hit.
For example, picking Eladrin for your Warlock arguably gives it more interesting tactical options than picking Orc. But the Orc (a) isn't a bad choice for Warlock, and (b) gets a couple of interesting tactics of its own, especially for a Hexblade or Celestial.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2023-02-06, 11:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
Choices that are poorer than other choices are bad choices, relatively. The absolute values do not matter, this is still the case. As mentioned up above, these choices may be entirely build dependent, with a race/species and class combination being good for one type of build and bad for another type of build. I think many players want choices to matter, and many players who just want to build whatever combination they want without being penalised. This is why there are two divisions.
The worst case scenario in my opinion is to still have differences that make certain races/species and class non-optimal, but for these differences to be minor - it doesn't really work for either camp. Its not a compromise, its the worst of both. People are still penalised, while the choice feels very unsatisfying and does not encourage figuring out how to best work with the result. Its an irritant rather than a useful feature.
-
2023-02-06, 12:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
In general, I would say that the goal should be to make every race as mechanically interesting as possible. Whether something is 'interesting' or not is subjective, but in general I would say that a race that is good for several classes while also being very different from other races that are good for those classes should be the goal.
One of my favorite races is the tortle. Objectively, not remotely overpowered, but it allows you to play certain classes (druid, monk, cleric) in new ways, and people still bring it up now and again./
The problem with fixed-stat modifiers is that they're both
- very mechanically important.
- very standardized and not particularly distinctive.
So looking at the PHB races, dragonborn, half-orcs, mountain dwarves, humans, and half elves all could get bonuses to strength, which made all of them good as barbarians or strength fighters. They are all way better for such builds/classes than the alternatives. Dragonborn make WAY better barbarians than wood elves under the PHB rules, in spite of being much weaker overall.
But all these "good barbarian races" are good for the same reason. They good because of the bonus to strength. for different reasons. A barbarian doesn't actually want the (non-strength) features that a half-orc or dragonborn has. Mechanically speaking, playing a half-orc doesn't feel very different from playing a half-elf that put its modifier into strength. Things like brutal critical and standing up at 1 hp and sleep immunity don't come up much overall.
And that's bad. These races are very boring, and concepts that could be fun are much mechanically worse for no real reason. Something like a wood elf being so much worse than a half elf, while the half elf is just as good as a half orc, is pretty hard to justify on the basis of fluff, and the mechanical reasons for this are boring as heck.
I'll also note that speaking for myself, I've seen a LOT of vhumans and half-elves at my table over the years. Those races having floating modifiers made them easy to slot into any build.
The Tasha's solution here is simple: make every race have floating modifiers, so that race choice is guided by their non-ASI features, and then make those non-ASI features really strong and distinctive. And though I was skeptical at first...
Look, compare the Fizban's dragonborn to the PHB dragonborn. Can you seriously tell me that you'd ever prefer the PHB dragonborn? And the Fizban's dragonborn isn't even OP, its just good and has interesting abilities.
AND its more in keeping with the lore, since Dragonborn aren't supposed to all be big muscly half-orc lookalikes.Last edited by strangebloke; 2023-02-06 at 12:25 PM.
Make Martials CoolAgain.
-
2023-02-06, 12:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Better alternative than stat-less races
The absolute values do matter, and the fact that you think they don't is why we're unable to come to any kind of compromise on this. A big part of what we (those of us who want ability modifiers decoupled from species) want is a floor that is higher than a fixed ability score penalty and a ceiling that is below a fixed ability score bonus. Reattaching those, or their equivalents, to a given species to make it strictly better or strictly worse than all other options with that modifier as their key ability is the nonstarter here. As strangebloke mentioned, your key ability is "very mechanically important" (absolute value) in a way that something like increased carrying capacity or even counting as a size larger for specific calculations is not.
No, this is still the same false dichotomy that you and others insist on perpetuating. My presence in the "Not wanting to be penalized by absolute values" camp does not mean I don't "want choices to matter." I can and do have both in a post-Tasha's/MPMM world. Just because choosing to play an Orc Warlock is not penalizing me mathematically over an Eladrin one anymore, does not mean the choice between the two doesn't have any impact. An even cursory read of the features they get proves that belief to be false.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)