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

[LightPhoenix]

If the goal for races is simplicity, and I think it should be, then I'm all for getting rid of ability score adjustments altogether. Give each race one or two special abilities (including humans) and leave it at that. If you're using feats, maybe allow the player to pick from a feat pool with the option to pick up more later. The abilities can be thematically appropriate and, if built right, can suggest certain classes mechanically.

I'm not against the idea of docking small races on strength and movement, but I am wary of a penalty/bonus system. Specifically, I think that they're difficult and fiddly to balance, and easily gamed to make your penalties mean less than your bonuses. So if Halflings and Gnomes (and whatever else) get penalized for being small, I don't think they should get anything in return. If you want to be a Halfling Barbarian, that's great, but mechanically it would be a very sub-optimal choice.

 

[Kobold Stew]

So if Halflings and Gnomes (and whatever else) get penalized for being small, I don't think they should get anything in return. If you want to be a Halfling Barbarian, that's great, but mechanically it would be a very sub-optimal choice.

And many of us would choose it for that reason!

 

[LightPhoenix]

I would too; the concept of a savage Halfling Barbarian, quasi-Dark Sun style, is awesome.

 

[Klaus]

I would too; the concept of a savage Halfling Barbarian, quasi-Dark Sun style, is awesome.

Or Halfling Barbarians riding dinosaurs, Eberron-style!

 

[Li Shenron]

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).

I would appreciate such solution too, but it would not work for groups not using skills.

It's a bit confusing right now, because previously feats were optional and skills mandatory, now it's quite the other way around... but in general, feats and & skills represent versatility very well.

Expert players can interpret ability score bonuses also as representing versatility but their look & feel for most gamers is just that of sheer power from birth. Ignoring that is a mistake. A similar thing would happen if you'd give humans more HP, on the ground that even HP can represent versatility, adaptability, resourcefulness etc, because if HP just means an abstract generic ability of lasting longer in combat, you could say that humans are better at that because they are flexible and always find a way to reduce the effects. However, a lot of players will not easily buy that explanation, and will just see HP as being physically tougher than orcs and dwarves, and the look & feel is that the mechanics don't really represent the fantasy world appropriately. This is what happens with +1 bonuses to humans: they deliver the feel that humans are born better than e.g. elves which in all fantasy literature are the ones born better than humans. They can try all the abstract explanations they want, but they just manage to detach mechanics from narrative.

 

[Klaus]

I would appreciate such solution too, but it would not work for groups not using skills.

It's a bit confusing right now, because previously feats were optional and skills mandatory, now it's quite the other way around... but in general, feats and & skills represent versatility very well.

Expert players can interpret ability score bonuses also as representing versatility but their look & feel for most gamers is just that of sheer power from birth. Ignoring that is a mistake. A similar thing would happen if you'd give humans more HP, on the ground that even HP can represent versatility, adaptability, resourcefulness etc, because if HP just means an abstract generic ability of lasting longer in combat, you could say that humans are better at that because they are flexible and always find a way to reduce the effects. However, a lot of players will not easily buy that explanation, and will just see HP as being physically tougher than orcs and dwarves, and the look & feel is that the mechanics don't really represent the fantasy world appropriately. This is what happens with +1 bonuses to humans: they deliver the feel that humans are born better than e.g. elves which in all fantasy literature are the ones born better than humans. They can try all the abstract explanations they want, but they just manage to detach mechanics from narrative.

The last time skills-as-optional was mentioned, it was mentioned that in this case classes would get a bonus to ability checks based on this or that attribute (for instance, Fighters would get a bonus to Str checks, Rogues on Dex, etc). If this is the case, then humans would get this bonus on an additional ability check.

And I agree on your perception of the "+1 to all scores". In my playtest, when the one playing the human saw her stats she said "is there a mistake? I think I ended up with too many points..."