Changing Racial bonuses

4E is my favorite edition of D&D. However, one of the things that I do not like is that racial bonuses are a huge factor into selecting a race for the class that you have chosen (or vice versa). For example, if you want to play a Gnome fighter you will be hampered because the Gnome racial bonuses don't really benefit a fighter. And I don't like funneling players into having to abide by those preset limitations.

So... I was thinking about making it so that each race retains a +2 bonus to one of its stats while the other +2 bonus could be used on any stat. The Player Handbook races, for example, would look like:

• Dragonborn: +2 Str, +2 to any one ability
• Dwarf: +2 Con, +2 to any one ability
• Eladrin: +2 Int, +2 to any one ability
• Elf: +2 Dex, +2 to any one ability
• Halfling: +2 Dex, +2 to any one ability
• Half-Elf: +2 Cha, +2 to any one ability
• Tiefling: +2 Int, +2 to any one ability

This will allow PCs to be a little bit more selective in matching races with classes. For Humans I'm not yet decided on what to change to compensate having one of their strengths nullified. I'm thinking about giving them an additional +1 stat increase at levels 5, 15, and 25 (so they end up with a +5 stat bonus total compared to the other races' +4 stat bonus). I'm still looking for other ideas and brainstorming on this one though.

So... any feedback appreciated.

Be sure to note that the second +2 must be applied to a different stat than the primary +2. Otherwise, everyone will go for +4 on one stat.

I suppose from the POV of being able to play any character from any race, your idea would make sense. PCs are supposed to be exceptional from the norms of their race. The existing rules presume that some races are better at certain things, than other races.

DragonMan said:

The existing rules presume that some races are better at certain things, than other races.

Click to expand...

The setup of the existing rules has that presumption but the reality is that no one takes a race that doesn't have stat bonuses associated with the class - often both the primary ability and the secondary ability but sometimes just the primary ability. Thus, you don't see wizards with races without a +2 Int, or rangers without a +2 to Str or Dex. In the years I've been playing 4E I don't think I've ever seen a Half-Elf ranger, for example.

Other ideas I had for humans would be to gain either: +2 racial bonus to any one skill or gain a weapon proficiency.

Traxe said:

The setup of the existing rules has that presumption but the reality is that no one takes a race that doesn't have stat bonuses associated with the class - often both the primary ability and the secondary ability but sometimes just the primary ability. Thus, you don't see wizards with races without a +2 Int, or rangers without a +2 to Str or Dex. In the years I've been playing 4E I don't think I've ever seen a Half-Elf ranger, for example.

Other ideas I had for humans would be to gain either: +2 racial bonus to any one skill or gain a weapon proficiency.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm, maybe you play with people that are more focused on math than some. My experience is that players have certain ideas about races, and they tend to build characters around those preconceptions. The the extent that 4e embodies those (Dwarves are strong and durable) there's a tendency to build characters with class and race aligned mathematically. OTOH I saw a couple of half-elf rangers (out of maybe 4 total in games I've run). Clearly those players were building to a character concept (and racial stereotype probably) and then worrying about bonuses later.

In any case, there's no drastic penalty for playing a class with a prime requisite you don't have a bonus on. You can still pull an 18 (or live with a 16, not ideal but perfectly playable). What you end up with are better strong secondary and tertiary stats, which lets you build a character with a bit wider set of abilities. Such characters aren't penalized by 4e, though you may have to think about what feat or item you use with that character a bit more, perhaps. Or you might be more prone to MC or something like that.

To take your Gnome Fighter example, its perfectly OK to be a 4e Gnome Fighter. Stick to sword and board, pick up social and knowledge skills, and build a highly mobile fighter that can strike effectively from the shadows and then tie up is opponents, force them into disadvantageous situations, etc. You could MC with Warlord quite profitably of course, use your ability to appear suddenly and push opponents around to create an ideal situation for a Commander's Strike on a now-flanked opponent. Seems like a pretty reasonable and effective character concept.

I don't think I really have anything against your idea here. I do sort of feel though like eroding away all mechanical differences between races, classes, etc. does attack their distinctiveness to some extent. Part of the 'build game' is having to make these trade-offs. Often a concept will emerge out of or be shaped by the need to combine certain elements in order to achieve your goal. That can add to the game rather than subtracting from it.

AbdulAlhazred said:

I do sort of feel though like eroding away all mechanical differences between races, classes, etc. does attack their distinctiveness to some extent. Part of the 'build game' is having to make these trade-offs. Often a concept will emerge out of or be shaped by the need to combine certain elements in order to achieve your goal. That can add to the game rather than subtracting from it.

Click to expand...

.

This is why I'm keeping one of the racial bonuses. Dwarves will still be tough because all dwarves will still have that +2 Con bonus. And all the racial background info doesn't change so each race still has their racial identity. They just won't be so rigid in the structure that PCs are operate in when selecting race associated with class primary and secondary stats.

Traxe said:

.

This is why I'm keeping one of the racial bonuses. Dwarves will still be tough because all dwarves will still have that +2 Con bonus. And all the racial background info doesn't change so each race still has their racial identity. They just won't be so rigid in the structure that PCs are operate in when selecting race associated with class primary and secondary stats.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I am definitely of mixed feelings on this kind of issue. I get that you want someone to be able to make a dwarf with a +2 INT and make it a Wizard. OTOH we had a dwarf wizard in one game, he wasn't gimped, he was just a good summoner and orb specialist (CON/WIS strong secondaries). Granted, his DEX and CHA weren't so hot, and his STR was in the dumper, but it worked.

Often I do find that arbitrary restrictions on things seem more limiting than they are helpful. I never got why certain weapon enchantments are restricted to only certain weapons, or why Swordmages can't just use an Axe, or why you have to burn extra feats to use various low damage weapons with thief abilities. I do see what the point of those rules was getting at though, swords are traditional for swordmages, maces traditionally work best on undead, and sneak attack is usually flavored as being surgically precise blows that require specific super-accurate weapons. There are SOME mechanical reasons as well, certain weapons used with rogue powers might be a little too much, but I agree that there's still a bit too much there sometimes.

Honestly, you can call me Aameul and Hethradiah, I can fight with myself on this subject all day long.

I'm of mixed opinion about this too. In my Complete 4th Edition I eliminated racial stat bonuses altogether, in part because of Traxe's objection and in part because some of the stat bonuses just don't lend themselves to the classes/builds that a race clearly ought to be good at. The poster boy example being the tiefling, who ought to be a perfect infernalock, but has stats that point to other classes due to having no Con bonus.

But in my Points of Light where I was building everything from scratch anyway and setting racial bonuses and build stats to agree with each other, I went the route of later 4e. I.e., each race gets one predefined bonus and a choose-one-of-two bonus. (Humans get a bonus to any two stats.)

Traxe said:

For Humans I'm not yet decided on what to change to compensate having one of their strengths nullified. I'm thinking about giving them an additional +1 stat increase at levels 5, 15, and 25 (so they end up with a +5 stat bonus total compared to the other races' +4 stat bonus). I'm still looking for other ideas and brainstorming on this one though.

Click to expand...

This may sound strange, but hear me out:

The human's flex bonus is only an advantage until a player actually assigns it and makes class and build decisions. If D&D were some tabletop wargame where players got to apply that flex bonus differently to different Human Army units, it'd be an advantage in actual play. But D&D is a game of heroes, where once a PC is created, that bonus is the same as every other racial bonus. Thus if players always choose races which grant a +2 to their primary stat anyway, the flex bonus isn't an advantage at all in actual play.

Just some food for thought.

DragonMan said:

Be sure to note that the second +2 must be applied to a different stat than the primary +2. Otherwise, everyone will go for +4 on one stat.

Click to expand...

Very much this!

C4 said:

This may sound strange, but hear me out:

The human's flex bonus is only an advantage until a player actually assigns it and makes class and build decisions. If D&D were some tabletop wargame where players got to apply that flex bonus differently to different Human Army units, it'd be an advantage in actual play. But D&D is a game of heroes, where once a PC is created, that bonus is the same as every other racial bonus. Thus if players always choose races which grant a +2 to their primary stat anyway, the flex bonus isn't an advantage at all in actual play.

Just some food for thought.

Click to expand...

Totally true, its an 'advantage' for the RACE of humans, they can fulfill any class that might be useful, but it has absolutely no specific personal value to the human PCs at all. Honestly, the human-only feats and racial power are pretty good, but given the vast number of feats in 4e they aren't really an advantage (anymore unless you play with only very restricted books). Getting an extra feat at level 1 is a pretty nice bonus, but consider how nice main racial of many races is, dwarves get minor action Second Wind (a HUGE HUGE benefit that they use in every single fight generally speaking), eldar get Fey Step, which is also pretty stupid good, halflings get an awesome ability, etc. Seems to me like humans are basically trading a +2 on a 2nd stat for a skill training. I never understood where that was a good trade off. Plenty of players played humans, but it wasn't due to some desire to optimize, that's for sure. (and honestly, thinking about it, humans weren't any more common than dwarves or halflings, who seemed to be perennial favorites in our 4e).

I actually think the extra skill and feat is pretty big. The extra feat can translate into extra damage, extra hit bonus, higher ac, and a myriad number of other potential benefits. The extra damage and hit bonus is nearly the same as a +2 in the corresponding ability (except without the other tangible benefits.

I have always thought WotC has been on the low end of providing skills to the classes (in 3.5 I have all classes an extra 2 skill points). I treat all skills as knowledge-capable skills. For example, your athletics might tell you that Bob the half-orc guard won the local log-tossing contest. Thus the extra skill for humans is a tangible and worthwhile bonus in my games.

I don't think it would hurt giving humans another benefit though.. maybe give them a +3 bonus whenever they use an action point instead of the normal +2 bonus. Or convert one of the many feats that are human only into a permanent racial bonus.

Traxe said:

I actually think the extra skill and feat is pretty big. The extra feat can translate into extra damage, extra hit bonus, higher ac, and a myriad number of other potential benefits. The extra damage and hit bonus is nearly the same as a +2 in the corresponding ability (except without the other tangible benefits.

Click to expand...

Sure, but you are giving up a +1 ability bonus in some ability score (presumably one that is a secondary for your class on average) AND a racial ability (which are usually better than feats, though YMMV depending on your class choice and race). So it hardly seems like the trade is clearly in your favor. I think it can be a good deal vs some other choices you could make, its not 'gold' though, there are better options. I'm OK with that, many races are less than the best for pretty much everything, and like most races, humans do get a few exclusives that are pretty nice. I mean, you sure would rather be human than Kenku!

I have always thought WotC has been on the low end of providing skills to the classes (in 3.5 I have all classes an extra 2 skill points). I treat all skills as knowledge-capable skills. For example, your athletics might tell you that Bob the half-orc guard won the local log-tossing contest. Thus the extra skill for humans is a tangible and worthwhile bonus in my games.

I don't think it would hurt giving humans another benefit though.. maybe give them a +3 bonus whenever they use an action point instead of the normal +2 bonus. Or convert one of the many feats that are human only into a permanent racial bonus.

Click to expand...

Right. Anyway, I'm not down on humans. They fall within the range of variation of 4e races and don't do badly. That's probably all you can ask from WotC considering they have the most variant of all racial setups short of revenants and shades.