Cutting the Cruft from D&D Races, Part 1

D&D 5E’s character creation process is the biggest obstacle to new players getting into the game. Chapter 2: Races in the Player's Handbook (PHB) is the worst culprit, on a time-invested-to-gameplay-payoff ratio basis. I’m using the terms ancestry, “race,” species, creature, and humanoid interchangeably in this series of posts. I favor ancestry, but a deeper consideration of these terms would be a post of its own, for another time.

Eliminating ancestries entirely, or employing a “race as class” system (as in B/X D&D and other RPGs) are both viable options to fixing this issue. But for sake of discussion, I’m going to attempt to navigate a middle road – can we fix ancestry selection by streamlining it and making them more like another character creation component?

Detach Ancestries from Ability Scores

In the 5E PHB, as in most of the game’s previous editions, the biggest mechanical impact of ancestry is a starting adjustment to ability scores, frequently a +2 to one ability score at the race level and a +1 to another at the subrace level. The typical player will choose a class first, then work backward to a shortlist of ancestries that would provide relevant bonuses for their class.

Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything decouples the ability scores from ancestries, and encourages further customization of other ancestry features. While this is an alternate rule, I expect that Wizards of the Coast will further mainstream it in the anticipated “5.5E” revision of the core rules, expected in the next few years. The following approach assumes separating ability scores from ancestries is standard and permanent, which makes them much easier to hack.

Balance Ancestries Closer to Backgrounds

My operating theory here is that 5E players' self-image of their characters is 90% class, and 10% ancestry. As characters go on adventures, very few get “more elvish” or “more dwarvish,” while the game’s advancement system certainly facilitates feeling “more roguish” or “more monkish.” 

This is part of the reason that players often forget about useful (but infrequently triggered) abilities like the halfling’s Lucky feature or the half-orc’s Relentless Endurance trait. The character’s ancestry is not part of the player’s primary gameplay, the way their class abilities are – so of course they are forgotten.

The rules of D&D (or any game) need to reflect how players actually play that game, not some abstracted system that they engage with at character creation and forget about afterward.

As written, ancestries are too mechanically complex by half. They should be balanced more like 5E’s backgrounds – a starting point for a character, which becomes less mechanically relevant as they go on adventures; advance in their class; and acquire tangible in-game commodities like wealth and magic items.

Backgrounds are 5E’s least-appreciated character creation design element. They provide a few proficiencies, one crunchy feature, and the rest is flavor. Four simple sentences detailing bonds, flaws, ideals, and traits are more than enough for a new character needs to have a compelling launchpad for gameplay. Ancestries should tack closer to this model.

Next: Cutting the Cruft from D&D Races, Part 2