D&D 5E Next Q&A: Humans subraces, Wound Modules, Halfling Barbarians.

[Jeff Carlsen]

Size shouldn't automatically be a factor. Sure, there is a tendency for large creatures to be strong, simply to move their own bulk, but it's certainly not universal.

That said, Halflings and Gnomes are not expected to be strong creatures for their size. We expect them to be weaker than humans as much as we expect orcs to be stronger than humans.

This is something I feel Third Edition did well.

 

[Bluenose]

That said, Halflings and Gnomes are not expected to be strong creatures for their size. We expect them to be weaker than humans as much as we expect orcs to be stronger than humans.

I don't understand this. Why wouldn't halflings/gnomes be 'strong for their size'? One traditional view has them as commonly farmers and miners respectively, and I can't imagine anyone seriously arguing that those are careers which don't require significant physical strength.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Ability scores don't measure "strong for their size" -- strength is a fixed (external) scale, on which most humans fall between 3 and 18 (though you could say 9-20 in DDN; whatever -- all human strength falls across these 12 or 16 points, which spreads over a bell curve).

Now to small races: However one imagines a halfling or a gnome, you are dealing with less than a third of the muscle mass involved in an average human. And one component of strength is the cross sectioned area of a muscle. Short of magic, a halfling is incapable of working on the same curve. I'm no kinesiologist, but I imagine a flat -6 to strength (so the point buy starts at 4, and the effective range is 5-14 when measured against the default human range) would be right, even if they are a hardy race of farmers. It just wouldn't be "fair", and that would be tough to balance for play. Farmers and miners do require physical strength, but the raw potential isn't there without the muscle mass.

So we fudge it, and we do so happily. But suspension of disbelief is required, and the amount is more than the difference of a spear doing d6 or d8 damage.

even if we scaled things back -- -4 to strength for small races, or a hard cap of 14 but the same base -- we would more closely describe the limits of potential for physical strength. But it's not somehtin g I suspect people want in their game.

 

[Sage Genesis]

The idea that a halfling barbarian ought to be weaker than a half-orc barbarian is kind of ridiculous when the game clearly gives them the exact same strength score: 20.

Oh, sure, they'll start slightly below that value, but that's where they both will end up, together with all the humans, elves, dwarves, etc. The game's entire mathematical model is built around the assumption that PCs will get a score of 20 in their main attribute pretty quickly, perhaps even right out of the gate at level 1. Half-orc barbarians are stronger than their halfling peers? Good joke!

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I don't understand this. Why wouldn't halflings/gnomes be 'strong for their size'? One traditional view has them as commonly farmers and miners respectively, and I can't imagine anyone seriously arguing that those are careers which don't require significant physical strength.

While an argument could be made that halfings, being farmers, should be stronger (our at least the stouts), this has never been the traditional view. As for gnomes, the only tradition I know of where gnomes are miners is where they're actually dwarves. But I'm late to the game on gnomes, so I could be missing something.

Even so, strong as humans? probably not. It just doesn't feel right.

 

[Li Shenron]

Even so, strong as humans? probably not. It just doesn't feel right.

But hey, they are not! Because humans are now stronger than any other race

I hate these genetically-superior-to-everyone-else humans so much, that if they don't change them I am probably just going to avoid using races altogether, which is actually what I did when playtesting (but the reason for that back then was actually just to keep the game simple for beginners, races are not really needed to play the game). Because banning humans just feels too weird... so I'm just going to ban all races, in the sense that if you want to play an Elf, fine you're an Elf, but you get no mechanical changes.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

With the all classes get +1 to an ability or a feat, I do hope they fix the Human ability score mods. I think it should generally be something like +1 to 2 different ability scores, or substitute them for feats.

 

[Li Shenron]

With the all classes get +1 to an ability or a feat, I do hope they fix the Human ability score mods. I think it should generally be something like +1 to 2 different ability scores, or substitute them for feats.

Even tho substituting them for feats may result in some humans to have all +1, it would still make me feel much more comfortable than the current version!

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

But hey, they are not! Because humans are now stronger than any other race

I hate these genetically-superior-to-everyone-else humans so much, that if they don't change them I am probably just going to avoid using races altogether, which is actually what I did when playtesting (but the reason for that back then was actually just to keep the game simple for beginners, races are not really needed to play the game). Because banning humans just feels too weird... so I'm just going to ban all races, in the sense that if you want to play an Elf, fine you're an Elf, but you get no mechanical changes.

I wouldn't throw out races, I'd just modify the ones that exist, using previous editions as a guide. Probably, I'd try to give each race some negative traits so that humans could remain the simplest option by not having any adjustments or traits whatsoever.

Then, as an advanced option, have a set of positive and negative traits that humans (or any race) can choose from, so long as they take one negative for each positive. I'd likely use the Advanced Race Guide from Pathfinder for inspiration.

 

[Klaus]

Even tho substituting them for feats may result in some humans to have all +1, it would still make me feel much more comfortable than the current version!

My personal preference at the moment is that humans get +1 to two different skills (variety), an extra skill from a different background (adaptability) and begin with a larger skill die (ingenuity).