D&D 5E Discriminating Against Sameness: A Case for Readjusting Racial Bonuses and Ability Score Increases

[snickersnax]

Variant humans remain the same (floating +1/+1 and a feat); standard humans are boring and I don't want to think about them; for races with modifiers, I'm pretty happy with the current net modifiers, but adding penalties so you can have larger mods. But in addition! racial modifiers (except for variant humans) also affect minima and maxima: if elves have +3 to Dex and +2 to Int but -2 to Con, they can get Dex 23 and Int 22 but only Con 18. If half-giants have +4 to Strength and +2 to Con, they can get up to Str 24 and Con 22, etc.

When I was thinking this through, I thought that it might make more sense to go with half the bonus for improving the maximum. Then if you had a race with +20 strength, their racial maximum would be 30.

Then a Storm giant with a racial bonus of +18 has a Strength maximum of 29. It solves helps soften the blow when you hit the 30 ability score ceiling... Just a thought.

 

[snickersnax]

Granting bonuses disrupts the 5e gaming system balance (namely bounded accuracy). The d20 only has so much room, and a +10 including various bonuses can mean infinite auto-win.

Instead of granting bonuses, treat races like classes that need minimum ability score prerequisites.

So, before making any racial ability score adjustments, if you want to play ...
• a Dwarf, you must assign at least Constitution 13.
• a Half-Orc, you must assign at least Strength 15.
• an Orc, you must assign at least Strength 17.

According to how the setting understands each race.

Bonuses tend to encourage high ability score assignments anyway because of min-maxing. But it is possible to enforce prerequisites for flavorful distinctiveness. Placing high points in one ability means there is less to spend on an other ability.

I really like this idea

 

[snickersnax]

It looks pretty good, over all. It might make barbarians relatively less powerful, if fighters are the only ones who can abuse power attack, but you could also just edit the list of available feats to get rid of the broken ones.

One thing that you're missing, the reason why mountain dwarves get +2 to Strength by the book is because their only other ability is useless to any character who would want the Strength bonus; every class that can reasonable use +2 to Strength will already have proficiency in medium armor, and +2 Strength to a wizard or rogue is basically just a ribbon. If you don't change that in your system, then mountain dwarves will just be a less appealing option over all (although it's still just a ribbon for wizards and rogues).

OK, I totally agree that medium armor proficiency is a weak mountain dwarven feature especially compared to hill dwarven toughness. And I need to fix it. For those who are reading this thread, do you think a +4 strength would be more appropriate for what I am suggesting here or a change to mountain dwarf other extras like: all dwarves get medium armor proficiency and dwarven toughness. I mean it is called dwarven toughness after all not HILL dwarven toughness.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm all for making races different, but ability scores aren't really different. Your just getting a number boost and that's it. All archers are now elves and all barbarians are goliaths, and you will never see an Aasimar fighter/wizard/rogue/monk/etc...

Numbers have real meaning, though. They certainly mean more than your personal tolerance for alcohol, or your preference for or against crowds. A character with higher Strength or Dexterity is going to be more successful at a wide variety of tasks, which is likely to change how they approach any given situation.

It absolutely will not mean that you only ever see elven archers and goliath barbarians. There will always be individuals who don't conform to their own societies. You will still find dwarf rogues and elven paladins. They just won't be as good at what they do as someone of a race that is better suited to the task; the best archers will all be elves, and the mightiest barbarians will all be goliaths. Which is exactly what makes sense for a fantasy setting.

 

[ccs]

Needs work IMO. Particularly how you assign Cha +/-. Explain what you think charisma is. Now defend why you assigned the mods you did. Ex; Why does a Deep Gnome have a penalty? Why don't 1/2orcs?

Otherwise, what did your players think of it?

 

[Sunseeker]

Personally, I think this will just exacerbate the problem of sameness of build. Races should have no stat adjustments, that should be part of classes.

 

[Corwin]

I just think its funny when some people, who treat the ignore feature as a knuckle slapper, only end up looking foolish for having posted something someone else said many posts earlier.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

OK, I totally agree that medium armor proficiency is a weak mountain dwarven feature especially compared to hill dwarven toughness. And I need to fix it. For those who are reading this thread, do you think a +4 strength would be more appropriate for what I am suggesting here or a change to mountain dwarf other extras like: all dwarves get medium armor proficiency and dwarven toughness. I mean it is called dwarven toughness after all not HILL dwarven toughness.

I think it would be weird if there was a four point spread in Strength between hill dwarves and mountain dwarves, or if a 4-foot dwarf was as strong as an 8-foot goliath. Maybe give mountain dwarves +2 Strength, medium armor proficiency, and an additional +1 AC when wearing medium or heavy armor?

 

[snickersnax]

Needs work IMO. Particularly how you assign Cha +/-. Explain what you think charisma is. Now defend why you assigned the mods you did. Ex; Why does a Deep Gnome have a penalty? Why don't 1/2orcs?

Otherwise, what did your players think of it?

My decision for deep gnomes was based on the monster manual p164. Deep gnomes are listed with a 9 charisma (-1 penalty). It was difficult to not give half-orcs a penalty, but plain orcs are listed as charisma 10, so it was hard to justify giving an half-orc less charisma than an orc.

I think of abilities in terms of what they can do. So charisma would be persuasion, deception, intimidation which leads into the effects of those skills: leadership, the capacity for passive or active dominance, finally I try to think about the effects on spell casting, with charisma I'm hoping to keep in mind sorcerers, bards, paladins and warlocks.

 

[mellored]

Numbers have real meaning, though. They certainly mean more than your personal tolerance for alcohol, or your preference for or against crowds. A character with higher Strength or Dexterity is going to be more successful at a wide variety of tasks, which is likely to change how they approach any given situation.

What's the difference between a 20 Str, 20 Con Dwarf fighter and a 20 Str, 20 Con goliath fighter?
What's the differece betwen an Half-Orc wizard and a Dragonborn wizard?

Your arguing FOR sameness, not against it.

I'd prefer dwarven wizards who enjoy being underground, wood elf wizard who can hide, and halfling wizards who like to put on a show, rather than just have them all simply be bad wizards.

It absolutely will not mean that you only ever see elven archers and Goliath barbarians. There will always be individuals who don't conform to their own societies. You will still find dwarf rogues and elven paladins. They just won't be as good at what they do as someone of a race that is better suited to the task; the best archers will all be elves, and the mightiest barbarians will all be goliaths. Which is exactly what makes sense for a fantasy setting.

So you only allow Tiefling clerics in order to show how superior Aasimar clerics are?

Why not simply say make a race/class restriction?
Only goliath's can be barbarains.
Only elves can be archers.