D&D 5E D&D Q&A: 09/27/2013

[1of3]

So how about this... How about, instead of having a "simple" race which forces every Human character to be simple, instead having a Human race that is just as complex as the others, but then having an option for everyone no matter the race, to have +1 to all stats instead of all the racial benefits package?

That's a great idea. It also helps when you have truly different characters, like when a player wants cat folk and there is no time to make it up.

 

[Li Shenron]

I wasn't suggesting public open playtest. I was referring to other alpha playtest groups. It is to be hoped that all alpha playtest groups could deliver honest feedback on any given module without taking a dump on the concept for it.

Oh, definitely... I guess they'll have direct interaction with those groups, if they are not too many it should be possible.

 

[Rune]

Re: Li Shenron's suggestion:

Since it also (theoretically, anyway) balances those characters with the more complex versions it also (still) allows for both kinds of character at the same table. I like that a lot.

 

[am181d]

So how about this... How about, instead of having a "simple" race which forces every Human character to be simple, instead having a Human race that is just as complex as the others, but then having an option for everyone no matter the race, to have +1 to all stats instead of all the racial benefits package?

I think it would be weird to offer (for example) a Warforged or a Dragonborn with no racial abilities beyond a flat +1 per ability. Those are more obvious examples, but I feel that the racial abilities for even races like Dwarf and Elf are really important for establishing flavor. A Dwarf without dark vision would be weird, particularly if two players opted to play Dwaves and one chose the "simple" version and the other the full version. Is the simple version somehow physically disabled?

This would be a confusing option, and you'd still need to come up with an "advanced" version of human...

 

[Li Shenron]

Why do you want all races to have a +1 to all stats? It makes them uniform and devalues the bonuses.

This would be a confusing option, and you'd still need to come up with an "advanced" version of human...

Yes, I meant every race having its full package of (possibly) unique benefits, and the "+1 to all stats" being a low-complexity alternative to the race-specific package, available as an option for every race.

If some specific racial features are believed necessary, such as vision, maybe you can agree with the DM about forgoing a +1 in exchange for getting that feature.

Keep in mind that the choice would still be yours.

 

[Ratskinner]

Yes, I meant every race having its full package of (possibly) unique benefits, and the "+1 to all stats" being a low-complexity alternative to the race-specific package, available as an option for every race.

If some specific racial features are believed necessary, such as vision, maybe you can agree with the DM about forgoing a +1 in exchange for getting that feature.

Keep in mind that the choice would still be yours.

hmm.....

So we have six stats....and each feat is worth +1/+1 or +2 to stats...

Maybe each race should have 2-3 "racial feats" that you can take or not take.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

What's wrong with giving humans +2 to add to stats as they wish, then giving the other races all -2 (say, a halfling's Strength) or -1/-1 (a dwarf's Dexterity and Charisma)? I don't get the extreme fear of penalties that Wizards has had in the last couple of editions. I get avoiding if possible, but they make matters easier here.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

What's wrong with giving humans +2 to add to stats as they wish, then giving the other races all -2 (say, a halfling's Strength) or -1/-1 (a dwarf's Dexterity and Charisma)? I don't get the extreme fear of penalties that Wizards has had in the last couple of editions. I get avoiding if possible, but they make matters easier here.

The reason penalties are bad is that they increase the gap between best and worst. Let's assume that having a 20 strength makes you the "ideal" fighter. If there is a race that gives +2 to str, one that gives +1, one that gives +0 and one that gives -1 or -2, it creates a spectrum from "best fighter" to "worst fighter".

To any serious min-maxer, this means that picking the +2 strength race for every fighter you make it a no-brainer. You might take a race that only has +1 if you got some other minor useful benefit to make up for the loss. You might pick a race that only has +0 if you got a major benefit to outweigh the penalty. However, lose any more strength than that and you are beginning to get into "You are an idiot for taking that race/class combination". It takes 6 levels of fighter just to cancel out the penalty you put upon yourself by choosing a -2 str race compared to a +2 str race. That's 2 feats you could have had instead.

So, what it does in practicality is forbid that race/class combination from ever existing.

 

[Blackbrrd]

What's wrong with giving humans +2 to add to stats as they wish, then giving the other races all -2 (say, a halfling's Strength) or -1/-1 (a dwarf's Dexterity and Charisma)? I don't get the extreme fear of penalties that Wizards has had in the last couple of editions. I get avoiding if possible, but they make matters easier here.

It doesn't really matter if you give some one race +6 to stats and another +2 to stats or if you give one race +2 to stats and another -2. (Assuming you can't put more than +/- 1 to a stat). The delta is still 4.

I really liked the idea of customizing, with 3 feats or stat gains (+1/+1, can't stack), or a mix of stats and feats of your choice. The default can be the current setup, with this being the optional rule.

 

[Kinak]

I still really like the idea of giving humans a feat slot (+2 to one attribute, +1 to two attributes, or a feat). Maybe give them a skill too now that they're in, but I honestly think the feat would be fine and adequately reflect their adaptability.

Cheers!
Kinak