D&D 5E Human racial abilty modifiers

[Dice4Hire]

Overall, I find the blanket bonuses to be a clunky way of letting humans be a bit of a jack of all trades. If you want to do it less clunkily, give them a +1 to all rolls, or saves, or contested rolls or whatever.

I thought 4E did it well, +1 to defenses and a bonus at will and a feat

A feat might be too much for this system, so a +1 to saves and another skill would work fine.

But I'd prefer to see a racial power more.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'm with the Jester in this. Human ability score bonuses are the single worst thing in the game, and the very first thing I will house rule away if they stay.

It looks like the Skill Die is going to remain as an integral part of the system, used even in the basic version of the game. Perhaps Humans could always have a one step better skill die than the other races. Perhaps other human abilities would interact with the skill die, such as letting them apply it to additional rolls.

 

[triqui]

Humans shouldn't have "modifiers". They're (we're?) the starting point for the whole system. They should have average ability scores, and the meaning of said scores should be defined by what an average human can do.

I disagree. Humans should have bonus, but based on culture (or "subrace" as the game names it for non-humans). The average Iceland guy lose a marathon to the average ethiopian guy, and the average ethiopian guy lose vs an icelander throwing the hammer.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I disagree. Humans should have bonus, but based on culture (or "subrace" as the game names it for non-humans). The average Iceland guy lose a marathon to the average ethiopian guy, and the average ethiopian guy lose vs an icelander throwing the hammer.

Fair point, but are you then saying that we should have gender modifiers as well?

If we're talking about simulation, you might be right, but D&D hasn't gone the route of simulating differences between subgroups of real humans, and with good reason.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I like that it makes humans good for any role, and adds zero complexity to the game. It doesn't give you anything you have to remember during gameplay, it doesn't make you choose another sub-choice during character creation. You just pick human, apply the ability adjustment, and you're done.

If there's a solution that accomplishes that without the unfortunate implications, I'm all for it.

 

[triqui]

If we're talking about simulation, you might be right, but D&D hasn't gone the route of simulating differences between subgroups of real humans, and with good reason.

That's not true. In Birthright, different humans subgrooups had different stat bonus. So D&D has gone that route before.

Gender is a different issue. Mental attributes would be the same for both genders, while physical attributes are a net possitive bonus for males. Nobody would play females if they have no bonus and they have negative bonus to physical stats. So not only Political Correctness, but also game balance make this a no-no. On the other hand, races with different bonus isn't new in D&D. Hill Dwarves vs Mountain Dwarves, High Elves vs Wood Elves, Stout Halflings vs Tall halflings, etc, have been part of the game in a lot of itterations.

 

[Ahnehnois]

That's not true. In Birthright, different humans subgrooups had different stat bonus. So D&D has gone that route before.

Okay, fine. But not in the core rules.

Gender is a different issue. Mental attributes would be the same for both genders,

Not necessarily.

while physical attributes are a net possitive bonus for males.

Not necessarily.

Nobody would play females if they have no bonus and they have negative bonus to physical stats.

Sure they would.

So not only Political Correctness, but also game balance make this a no-no.

So you're saying we should have human stat modifiers, as long as they're mechanically balanced? Because a lot of people in this thread think the current modifiers are pretty unbalanced.

 

[triqui]

I didn't say *Current* modifiers (in the playtest) are balanced or positive. that does not mean 4e/pathfinder bonus, or Birthright based modifiers are like the current bonus.

I'm kind of intrigued about how you would balance gender bonus, though. Specially with the physical bonus not being a bonus for males.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I didn't say *Current* modifiers (in the playtest) are balanced or positive. that does not mean 4e/pathfinder bonus, or Birthright based modifiers are like the current bonus.

They're related, but not the same. Fair enough.

I'm kind of intrigued about how you would balance gender bonus, though. Specially with the physical bonus not being a bonus for males.

With regards to that issue, it is intriguing, but it is also inflammatory. I participated in those discussions before and it wasn't fun.
So I'll just say this much: Strength is the most tangible ability score, and most will agree as to who has more of that. In my opinion, for every ability score other than strength, there is a good case for each gender to be better than the other. Thus, almost any way of doing it is justifiable. To me, it's better to just say that it's a wash and not bother at all.

 

[triqui]

Well, if I look to Olympic games, I don't see any case where women excel at physical attributes more than men.

Strength is obvious: weightlifting or hammer throwing.

Dexterity: sports where coordination, aim or quickness are the main attribute. Men win in diving, sharpshooting, and table tennis for example.

Constitution: Men win in Marathon. They also win in sports where "hit points" are used, like boxing.

So I don't see how that would go with anything but a -2 to all physical stats for females (or +2 for males), if you try to make an extreme simulationist game. I agree it's not worth bother with it, but if you would do, from a simulation point of view, females would be very underpowered in physical stats. Which is dumb from a balance point of view, and from narrativist point of view (Red Sonja should be as capable as Conan)