D&D 5E Racial Weaknesses

[Jester David]

Sometime what defines us is not our strengths, but our weaknesses. While 5e classes and races might have areas they are less strong, this is not the same thing as a weakness.

I think the common wisdom is that racial stat penalties are gone and not coming back. They push people to certain classes and making playing some options in-optimal despite potential story ties.

But what of more flavorful weaknesses tied to situations or interactions?
For example, dwarves are normally uncharismatic. Perhaps they have disadvantage on Charisma contests with non-dwarves. A dwarf bard with charm skills up the wazoo might not treat disadvantage like too much of a penalty, but they're still less diplomatic than say a halfling, which might have disadvantage at strength contest instead.

This does not need to be a core rule, but might be a fun module. An optional set of rules for more frail elves, dour dwarves, distracts gnomes, and corruptible humans.

Thoughts?

 

[Unwise]

In the example above, hasn't that just ruled out dwarves from any class or background that involves any social skills? I think that that is the exact type of thing we want to get away from. It does so severely discourages certain character concepts that I would be very reluctant to include it. Even in LotR, a few of the younger dwarves were charming and playful.

I think that disadvantages could be used quiet well, if kept to situational circumstances that are unrelated to a classes core competencies. Some examples might include:

- Dwarves have disadvantage in swimming. This would effect all classes the same pretty much. It affects the sailor background, but that DM might decide that they want dwarven sailors to be rare and brave.

- Dwarvish humour is said to be as rare as roc's eggs. In truth it is just very hard to understand and subtle. Most species cannot tell when a dwarf is joking. Everything the dwarf says will be taken literally unless absolutely obsurd. They are at disadvantage when being frivilous, flippant or poetic with people unaccustomed to dwarvish ways. (optionally, on the other hand, being so hard to read has advantages, people are at -2 to insight checks when dealing with dwarves)

- Dragons/Dwarves/Duergar might suffer from gold-fever. When presented with large amounts of gold, they are at disadvantage for all will checks.

- Eladrin have issue seeing/feeling the urgency in things, this makes them appear to humans to be lazy and easily distracted. It might take them longer to perform all long off-camera tasks. E.g. Writing a sonnet, building a bridge, enscribing a rune, copying a book.

- Eladrin are so prideful that when in a humiliating situation they fall apart. They are at disadvantage until the source of their indignity is removed. E.g. Falling into an open sewer, fighting naked, a warddrobe malfunction, a critical failure on seduction etc.

- Halflings tend towards gluttony, but even despite that they really do require more food than other species. They spend twice as much on rations and fill up half their backpack with luxuries.

In the Echoes of Heaven campaign for HARP, every race had a deadly sin that they had real issues overcoming. That worked pretty well. The trick is in keeping any disadvantage that might be personality based to the real core of the species, not just the cultural norms. For instance, gold-fever above could be a real biological response in the species. If it was just a cultural phenomonen it should likely be left out. You don't want to limit PC personalities too much.

 

[frankthedm]

- Dwarves have disadvantage in swimming. This would effect all classes the same pretty much. It affects the sailor background, but that DM might decide that they want dwarven sailors to be rare and brave.

I've always imagined a dwarf's liver is nearly as dense as stone.

 

[FireLance]

I think my ideal mechanic would be something that rewards you for playing up a weakness instead of something that simply saddles you with a penalty or a restriction. So maybe each time the dwarf acts dour and uncharismatic, he gets a Luck Point/Fate Point/Karma Point which he can spend at a later time to get +1d6 on a d20 roll or something.

A similar mechanic could be used for paladin codes of conduct and other restrictions.

 

[Jester David]

In the example above, hasn't that just ruled out dwarves from any class or background that involves any social skills? I think that that is the exact type of thing we want to get away from. It does so severely discourages certain character concepts that I would be very reluctant to include it. Even in LotR, a few of the younger dwarves were charming and playful.

Not being a professional game designer able to playtest mechanics I thought up minutes before bed, yeah the example might broken or harsh.
But it gets the idea across. A dwarven face character can still succeed, and still likely have a better chance than a non-charismatic character, but it's not their strong suit.

I think my ideal mechanic would be something that rewards you for playing up a weakness instead of something that simply saddles you with a penalty or a restriction. So maybe each time the dwarf acts dour and uncharismatic, he gets a Luck Point/Fate Point/Karma Point which he can spend at a later time to get +1d6 on a d20 roll or something.

A similar mechanic could be used for paladin codes of conduct and other restrictions.

From my experience in game that do that, the flaws tend to come out any time it's convenient (such as role-playing encounters that are side encounters) and get forgotten whenever things get important and serious.

 

[billd91]

I think my ideal mechanic would be something that rewards you for playing up a weakness instead of something that simply saddles you with a penalty or a restriction. So maybe each time the dwarf acts dour and uncharismatic, he gets a Luck Point/Fate Point/Karma Point which he can spend at a later time to get +1d6 on a d20 roll or something.

A similar mechanic could be used for paladin codes of conduct and other restrictions.

Something like that can work, but as Jester Canuck alludes, the setback caused by the complication needs to be significant. It works well for Mutants and Masterminds and the superhero genre, for example, but I think would require a bit more GM training for working into a fantasy genre.

It would be a good compensation for diverting PCs away from a particular goal. Merry, Pippin, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli would have been compensated with Hero points for being diverted to Rohan. Hero points would be good compensation for PCs getting captured or robbed or even cursed. I could probably think of other decent examples. But relatively minor weaknesses, I think, would have to rise the level of diverting or auto-failing a significant task to be compensated.

 

[GameDoc]

I think my ideal mechanic would be something that rewards you for playing up a weakness instead of something that simply saddles you with a penalty or a restriction. So maybe each time the dwarf acts dour and uncharismatic, he gets a Luck Point/Fate Point/Karma Point which he can spend at a later time to get +1d6 on a d20 roll or something.

A similar mechanic could be used for paladin codes of conduct and other restrictions.

True20 models this with Conviction Points. Each character has a virtue and a vice. You earn CPs for roleplaying your virtue or vice in situations where it actually makes things harder for your character. Later you spend them sort of like action points from 3e.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

True20 models this with Conviction Points. Each character has a virtue and a vice. You earn CPs for roleplaying your virtue or vice in situations where it actually makes things harder for your character. Later you spend them sort of like action points from 3e.

Was going to mention FATE, but True20 seems to work as well.

Note that penalty points can affect other party members. For instance, in my first FATE campaign, another character had a "bad luck" trait (it was something specific), and when we overheard some villains talking and tried to sneak up to hear more, he ended up making a very loud noise (knocked over some musical instruments... yes, that makes sense in context!), cheating the entire party of that knowledge

Flaws often seem a lot cooler on paper than in play.

 

[frankthedm]

Flaws often seem a lot cooler on paper than in play.

Uhm, they are not supposed to be cool, that's why they are called flaws.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think, as an opt-in thing, they'd be cool.

It's okay to limit character options for non-humans, if the DM wants that effect. If nothing else, it makes humans (or the occasional exception to the rule) that much more impressive.

It's not something that should probably be the default -- "accidental suck" isn't something that's awesome to include, and the more broad the base the more things can be built with it. But it's a really nifty module to make a human world -- or a stronger archetype for non-humans -- more of a solid idea.

And if a DM wants to add it, I don't see why it shouldn't just be "Dwarves: -1 CHA; Halflings: -1 INT; Elves -1 CON" (or whatever).