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

[Ratskinner]

I think if I were trying to increase diversity in my PCs, then increased stat mods would be very low on my list of things to do.

I would consider instituting rules changes that add more flavor or actually restrict sameness. Frex: each (sub)class, race, or feat can only be taken by a one player. (Heck, do that for spells, though that might run into mechanical limits.) Write special racial or background feats or increased potency racial special abilities.

Sent from my LG-TP450 using EN World mobile app

 

[snickersnax]

That really depends on your level, and whether or not you have feats in your game. If you're decently high level, and not using feats, then it's kind of an acknowledged truth that every strength-based character will max out their strength and constitution eventually. (Paladins might only be able to max out their strength and charisma, if they don't have favorable starting stats.)

"The acknowledged truth" that you are talking about is one of the things that I'm trying to nudge away from. I recognize that it can't be nudged very far otherwise it will stray very quickly into the concerns that some of the other posters have: Which is that there will be a single best race for any a class and optimizing players will eliminate all other options. Any nudge may be too much, but I feel like having almost every character have two 20 stats by level 16 and certainly by level 19 is preventing interesting variation in final builds. The level 20 Goliath barbarian has the same primary stats as the Halfling barbarian 24 strength/24 constitution. Its like the annual foot race with D&D characters who all move at 30. Every year its a tie.

So with the system I have presented, where Ability Score Increases are only +1 rather than +2, a human who started with two 16s would be have 5 ability score increases at level 19, so one score could be maxed at 20, the other score could be 18, if he took a feat that had an ability score increase with it, otherwise his secondary score would only be 17. Technically a human fighter he could get to 20 str and 20 con but it would also take all three of his feats

a non-human that has ideal stats for the class they want to be in, say a dwarf fighter who wants to max strength and con to 20 could do that. And if he wanted the 22 con, He could barely squeeze it out, but only if he dedicated one of his two feats to a feat that raises strength or constitution.

 

[Yaarel]

If your goal is to enforce only +1 per ability-score-improvement, then why not use the +1 feats, that come with an interesting ability. Even design some to help diversify what characters can do.

 

[FrogReaver]

​Humans and non-humans have been differentiated by their ability scores since the beginning of D&D. Non-humans are supposed to excel at one or two particular ability scores, and in older D&D editions non-humans often had penalties in one score (halflings were weak, elves had penalties on constitution and dwarves and half-orcs had low charisma). Humans were average, but they didn’t suck.

Surprisingly, in the current system, non-humans are effectively the same as humans in their primary scores (due to ability modifiers only increasing on even scores and standard array or 27-point buy). When compared to human variants, the human variants are now the ones with weak traits.

Sameness between races is further compounded by Ability Scores Increases as characters level up eventually red-lining several ability scores at 20 ( ie no differentiation)

It is interesting that when ability scores are listed for non-human races in the Monster Manual (or Volo’s) the ability scores tend to be double what player characters would receive (differentiation is preserved in those texts)

My homebrewed rules for racial ability score bonuses ramp up the distinct flavor of racial modifiers by making them more meaningful. The additional rules needed to balance this are simple and contribute in flavorful ways to the game.

1) Racial differentiation is preserved for player characters
2) Ability Score Increases are limited and Feats are special.
3) 1st level characters are slightly buffed, possibly improving survivability
4) At high levels secondary abilities are not easily maxed creating more Ability Score variation at high levels.

General Rules:

1. Humans don’t suck at anything: Humans get +1 on all ability scores AND a starting feat
2. Elves are nimble, dwarves are hardy: Racial bonuses are generally doubled for a total of +6 (see specifics below). Non-humans do not start with a bonus feat.
3. And they stay that way: If a racial bonus is +4 the maximum ability score is 22, if it is -2 the maximum ability score is 18. (0, +1 and +2 all have a maximum of 20)
4. Multiple ability scores are not maxed at 20 at high levels: Ability Score Increases are +1 (down from RAW of +2)
5. Feats are cool, but when everyone has them everything starts to feel the same: Feats cannot be substituted for Ability Score increases.
6. Fighters are loved and everyone else is a little less Lucky: Fighters get a Bonus Feat at level 6 and 14 instead of an ASI
7. Except Rogues: Rogues get a Bonus Feat at level 10 instead of an ASI

Yes... Level one humans, fighters and rogues are the only ones who get feats with this modification

Races: Having a +6 total to work with for ability scores means there is a little more leeway to fine-tune racial bonuses. I have taken liberties and adjusted races according to how I feel they should be.

Dwarves: +4 constitution
Hill Dwarf: +2 wisdom
Mountain Dwarf: +2 strength (not really sure why they got the boost in RAW)
Grey Dwarf (Duergar): +2 strength
Elves: +4 dexterity
High elves: +2 charisma (IMO elves should have charisma not intelligence)
Wood elves: +2 wisdom
Drow: females( +2 charisma), males (+2 intelligence)
Halflings: +2 dexterity, +2 constitution, +2 wisdom, - 2 strength (Yes, halflings are weaker than larger races, but there are also hardy, mentally tough and quick)
Lightfoot: +2 dexterity (+4 total)
Stout: +2 constitution (+4 total)
Ghostwise: +2 wisdom (+4 total)
Dragonborn: +2 strength, +2 constitution, +2 charisma
Gnome: +2 intelligence, +2 wisdom, +2 charisma, -2 strength (gnomes are small too)
Forest: +2 dexterity
Rock: +2 constitution
Deep: +2 strength (0 total), -2 charisma (0 total), +2 dexterity
River: +2 wisdom (+4 total)
Half-elves: +2 dexterity, +1 charisma, +1 wisdom, two scores by +1 (No longer need a weird story about how nobody likes them so they worked really hard to be likable and as a result are the most socially influential race and most powerful charisma based casters)
Half-orcs: +2 strength, +2 constitution, +1 wisdom, +1 dexterity
Tiefling: +2 intelligence, +2 dexterity. +2 charisma
Goliath: +4 strength, +2 constitution
Aasimar: +4 charisma, +2 wisdom

One interesting idea is to drop racial stats entirely (maybe leave a single +1 in the races highest ability) and instead assign each race a subset of the feats and let them pick 1 of those feats at level 1. Variant human gets the full list. If you feel the variant human isn't being compensated enough add in extra skills or languages till you feel it's a fair choice. I imagine this would be much more flavorful and do away with the "sameness" problem you are referencing.

 

[mellored]

Because dwarves like being underground. It's a dwarf thing. They like caves, and dislike open spaces.

The rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world; they don't define it. There are plenty of things which are simply true, without needing to be codified anywhere in the rules.

Then you should have rules that "reflect" the fact that dwarves like caves, and not open spaces.
And it can be "true" that dwarves are tough without needing to codify it with +4 Con.

 

[mellored]

goliaths were always going to be thinking strength based class...

Exactly. It leads to sameness.


Or, you could come up with a feature that any class can use. Like extra movement, extra carrying weight, a reaction to reduce damage, a climb speed, and a bonus for being outdoors.
Good for barbarian, warlock, and wizard.

 

[Hillsy7]

​Humans and non-humans have been differentiated by their ability scores since the beginning of D&D. Non-humans are supposed to excel at one or two particular ability scores, and in older D&D editions non-humans often had penalties in one score (halflings were weak, elves had penalties on constitution and dwarves and half-orcs had low charisma). Humans were average, but they didn’t suck.

Surprisingly, in the current system, non-humans are effectively the same as humans in their primary scores (due to ability modifiers only increasing on even scores and standard array or 27-point buy). When compared to human variants, the human variants are now the ones with weak traits.

Sameness between races is further compounded by Ability Scores Increases as characters level up eventually red-lining several ability scores at 20 ( ie no differentiation)

It is interesting that when ability scores are listed for non-human races in the Monster Manual (or Volo’s) the ability scores tend to be double what player characters would receive (differentiation is preserved in those texts)

Here's my tuppenceworth.....Probably worth as much too...

Firstly, More power to you - the Rules are stated as being just a guide, and so adjusting them to your preference is using the rulebook to it's maximum. Bonus points for already implementing then too. Seems like your group is enjoying them as well....tripleplus good!

Secondly, for clarity I'd tweak your language in the original post a bit. There are two types of "sameness" at play when talking about stats: Diversity and Aptitude. Your homebrew rules focus only on the sameness of Aptitude. Now that's not a good or bad thing, but realise it does mean you are favouring one over the other (aptitude and diversity and generally at either ends of the same continuum). I'd put that front and centre, because otherwise people are going to argue cross points, which isn't helpful to you. You are buffing Racial Aptitude which is going to impact class diversity - accept that that is the starting point of the conversation and isn't up for discussion.

Thirdly, your rules as stated are sort of a double shot of Aptitude: Increased maximum and increased starting boost. Personally, I think it's a little too much especially in the world of bounded accuracy and only a exacerbates the bounded accuracy modifier variance between physical and caster stats (Unless you're an aasimar CHA based caster) - That is with standard array currently both your casting stat and phys attack stat have a max of +3 modifier at level 1. With your mods, there are lots of +4 STR and DEX options, but only 1 choice for +4 CHA and WIS, and none for +4 INT. This is just a balancing issue that, for me, jives a bit with the intention of bounded accuracy.

Fourthly, your ASI progression system means that for the bulk of classes, they'll only reach their cap if they spend their ASI increases on 1 stat. e.g. A goliath Barbarian can start with 19 STR and has 5 ASIs - all must go on STR to hit the cap of 24. While this isn't a problem for mono-stat classes, anything that needs 2 primary stats (Other than CON) isn't going to be balanced. Similarly, Humans now REALLY suck and have to micromanage their point buy progress.

Fifthly, it is slightly anti-scientific (HAHAHA - D&D scientific....oh I slay myself!). Basically, practice outweighs "natural talent" over time - Natural accumen gives only the initial boost, and direction of travel ("Hey I'm good at this!"), but it is quickly dwarfed by practice and training. I'll out benchpress a naturally strong guy if I do 10000 practicing benchpressing. If you consider level 1 to be a reflection of training up to the start of the hero's journey, this means years of training can never close the gap on Racial benefits. I know that's built in the current system, but your +4 and a maximum of +5 from ASIs compounds this even more. Petty i know, but I'm a science nazi....

Lastly, As a design decision, you are punishing non-optimization. Again this isn't inherently a bad thing, but it's there. Race becomes more of a decision than class, and you're locked into that specialization for longer (because of the ASI nerf). You are also incentivising specialisation over versatility - the 13,13,13,13,13,13 array can work brilliantly currently with various skills and feats (at worst you're taking a -1 hit from your primary stat at level 1). Under your system that choice is now void.

Personally, I don't like this because it hampers me as a player. I lean much more towards Diversity than aptitude (I like to deliberately try suboptimal builds because I want to play the Dragonborn wizard who's jealous of his sorceror friends who don't have to study like mad to cast spells effectively), but that's how I want to play. It may not be how you and your friends enjoy your game, and that's cool (there's no badwrongfunning here).

In which case, I'd say you'll get far more mileage out of playtesting than asking people for their opinions because we're all playing different games. Objectively, there's loads here that throw the game balance out of whack for the majority of games. You game isn't the majority, it's unique, and therefore the only balance is how much fun you're having.

Good luck!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So with the system I have presented, where Ability Score Increases are only +1 rather than +2, a human who started with two 16s would be have 5 ability score increases at level 19, so one score could be maxed at 20, the other score could be 18, if he took a feat that had an ability score increase with it, otherwise his secondary score would only be 17. Technically a human fighter he could get to 20 str and 20 con but it would also take all three of his feats

There are a lot of interdependent factors to consider. When proposing a solution, I would keep in mind the following:

• Asking a player to choose between their prime stat, and any other stat, is not a meaningful choice.
• With five boosts to work with, you must start with at least a 15 in order to hit 20 by end-game.
• Most games don't make it to level 20.

Just looking at those things, I draw these conclusions:

• Halfling barbarians are nonviable as PCs. They might show up as NPCs, but they aren't going to be part of the Fellowship tasked with saving the world. For as long as any race has a higher allowable maximum in a prime stat, that race will be the only (accepted) viable race for that class. The designers were aware of this, and that's why everyone caps out at 20 in the core game. Note that some feats actually are worth +2 to your prime stat, so humans would remain viable as barbarians and archers.
• You aren't allowed to diversify until you cap your prime stat, because every other stat is definitionally worth less than your prime stat. If you start with a 15 in Intelligence as a wizard, then you will never put a point into any other stat for your entire career. To be fair, you would get a lot of that extra diversity at first level (since you have higher racial starting bonuses), but getting a +2 instead of a +1 in a secondary stat doesn't actually change anything since most people pair a +1 stat bonus with an odd value anyway.
• Following on that, since I didn't see where you're mandating a point-buy as part of this, your system is extraordinarily sensitive to starting rolls. One of the benefits of +2 at a time, and the universal cap of 20, is that a character with bad starting rolls will quickly catch up as the character who rolled an 18 is forced to put their boosts into non-prime stats. (Of course, that benefit is marginalized if the better character can keep taking useful feats, but that's why feats are an optional rule.)
• Since you only gain a +1 every four levels, but you know that your prime stat is the most important, sometimes you will have to wait eight levels before you see any tangible benefit, which isn't terribly satisfying.

So in summary, you severely restrict the list of race/class options that would actually be chosen, you frontload some of the diversification, and force a couple of those characters types into diversifying in secondary stats other than Constitution. That's what I would call a textbook example of a trade-off. I would say that your proposal is neither better nor worse than what's in the book, and it's all down to personal preference.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Then you should have rules that "reflect" the fact that dwarves like caves, and not open spaces.
And it can be "true" that dwarves are tough without needing to codify it with +4 Con.

No, because toughness is quantifiable and cave-preference isn't. For as long as we have a stat that specifically measures a thing, it needs to accurately reflect that thing in order for the thing to be true.

 

[Yaarel]

To remedy real diversity, what if the only choices for Ability Score Improvements are:

• Three (!) ability scores improve by 1, namely your primary ability score and two others of your choice.
• A feat that grants a minor feature plus one ability score improves by 1.
• A feat that grants a major feature.


That way, the prime ability score improves steadily, while two other ability scores that are more freely chosen also improve.