This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Interestingly, I think the reason they're looking at this from a non-political perspective is because this kind of was the case for 5e: a great many races got passed over for serious character creation because there were better options. Optimizing characters in 5e often fell to one of:
Variant Human: got ability bonuses in whatever abilities you wanted, got a free feat at level 1. Worked for basically anything, and often got fighter builds relying on specific feats up and running up to 3 levels earlier than they normally would.
Half-Elf: got 4 extra ability points instead of most races that capped out at 3, 2 of which were in CHA (a useful spellcasting stat) and the other 2 could be in any. Had a grab bag of useful abilities like darkvision, access to a powerful racial feat, and save bonuses.
Aaracokra: could fly as long as they weren't using armor, which would make casters largely untargetable for much of the early levels (typically the most dangerous phase of a campaign for casters).
Part of the issue was that the balance was a little off, but part of the issue was that things often had to line up just right to make a race playable. Take Mountain Dwarf for example: +2 ability points in both STR and CON , free proficiency with some strong melee weapons, and free medium armor proficiency. But while this all lines up thematically, when you combine them with an actual class it starts falling apart. STR and CON bonuses say Fighter/Barbarian, but they don't care about the extra proficiencies, they get them already. Those would be better suited to a weaker class that doesn't get armor like Wizard, but now you're wasting the ability points that were a big reason you were choosing that race in the first place: a Wizard generally won't care about Strength. Or Bugbear, which got a neat ability (extra reach with melee attacks) but got a +2STR/+1DEX ability bonus, which was generally guaranteed to waste some points since a melee character will generally focus in STR or DEX but not both. It's no accident that the races that did well are very generically useful stats and bonuses.
In a late 5e book they basically got rid of racial bonuses: each race gets the same quantity of ability bonuses, but an optional rule now says you can swap them into other abilities: your Mountain Dwarf still gets +2/+2, but the STR becomes INT and now you have your heavily-armored wizard with all his traits working together well.
This helped a lot with opening up other races: tons of builds that weren't really going to come together now worked well, and even if they weren't as optimized as just running the old straight lines they worked, particularly good news for players that have played many campaigns and have run through all the cookie-cutter builds. But it was kind of a weird thing thematically, because now you're really inclined to play directly opposite tropes. A Goblin Rogue doesn't make any sense, because the Goblin's nimbleness overlaps with the Rogue's nimbleness and wastes space (they both get similar features that you wont' want of). Instead you want a Goblin Wizard, or even a Goblin Barbarian, because now the Goblin abilities are completely new to the class. And I think that kind of points at why people don't want classic racial bonuses, mechanically.
5e is a really condensed game, trying to simplify away from earlier editions' huge slew of bonuses. And in the process they've reduced how many levers they can pull to incentivize things: everything overlaps with everything else, it doesn't stack. This means there's a limit to how much you can optimize on any one axis: you can't build out in one direction, the game doesn't have any new bonuses to hand you other than deep in the class trees. So instead you build wide, trying to eliminate character weaknesses, and in the process run into an inherent conflict. A Gnome fighter works better than a Dwarf fighter, because they aren't giving a Dwarf things a fighter doesn't already have, but a Gnome can branch out into new things. The race-tied ability bonuses end up heavily reducing build space and promoting feel-bad decisions, because now you have to choose between good stats and good bonuses, and a lot of the time the less-exciting but very powerful stat bonuses win out.
Honestly, until the 5.5e controversy reared its head, I hadn't even considered the issues with making races feel thematic after the "swap abilities wherever you want" rules change: I was much more focused on having a lot more exciting build space, because 5e characters feel so shallow that any way to get more customization and interesting mechanical parts of a character was a big deal.
I wonder if that's part of the reason there's not more outcry against this, that established players are just excited to have more customization levers again. Because it's really easy to get through 5e and kind of be "done" with archetypes: you just don't have that many decision points to make in a lot of them. When you've played your third Variant Human Fighter (this time with a halberd!), getting to usefully play a Tiefling Fighter feels like a breath of fresh air.
I think the real thing a lot of these players want is a deeper system, where being "dwarf" doesn't mean you're doing the same thing every time: you can be a big tough mountain guy but play to different parts of that for different characters and thus "dwarf fighter" doesn't define most of your character. Pathfinder 2e's racial feats seem like they cover this, but mainstream D&D clearly wants to be a lot simpler.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link