I prefer penalties and bonuses to be notable as well. If someone was complaining about penalties, I would have concerns about playstyle differences. My concern would be that they are too far along the power gamer and/or min-max axis for my tastes and this would lead to serious doubts about playing with them (what they do at a table that I am not at is no concern of mine).
When is a lack of bonus a penalty?
I prefer penalties and bonuses to be notable as well. If someone was complaining about penalties, I would have concerns about playstyle differences. My concern would be that they are too far along the power gamer and/or min-max axis for my tastes and this would lead to serious doubts about playing with them (what they do at a table that I am not at is no concern of mine).
Greenfield
Adventurer
There is a significant mechanical difference between lack of bonus and penalty.
The Elf with the +2 Dex and -2 Con can start with a 20 Dex, on the 3 to 18 scale, but no higher than a 16 Con. That DEX is a mechanical impossibility for anyone who doesn't get that kind of bonus.
Saying that the Elf is the baseline and that the Human suffers a -2 penalty off of that would mean that, for Dex only, the scale is 5 to 20, and for Con only the scale is from 1 to 16.
I suppose you could normalize the scales with Elf as the base line, but then you'd need to apply different bonuses and penalties to every other race and creature in the game world to accommodate the change.
Ultimately, you are simply chasing relativity, as applied to game mechanics. And while that might be an interesting intellectual exercise, in the end it isn't very productive.
The Elf with the +2 Dex and -2 Con can start with a 20 Dex, on the 3 to 18 scale, but no higher than a 16 Con. That DEX is a mechanical impossibility for anyone who doesn't get that kind of bonus.
Saying that the Elf is the baseline and that the Human suffers a -2 penalty off of that would mean that, for Dex only, the scale is 5 to 20, and for Con only the scale is from 1 to 16.
I suppose you could normalize the scales with Elf as the base line, but then you'd need to apply different bonuses and penalties to every other race and creature in the game world to accommodate the change.
Ultimately, you are simply chasing relativity, as applied to game mechanics. And while that might be an interesting intellectual exercise, in the end it isn't very productive.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
Well, except there's another mechanical difference (in addition to what people have pointed out). Let's take two people: one elf, and one human. Each has straight 10s for stats, save their ability modifiers.
Example 1: Human with 10 Dex / 10 Con, Elf with 12 Dex / 8 Con. They both need to make a relatively easy DC 10 Dex and Con check, and aren't rushed, in combat, etc. Both can take a 10, but only the human will succeed on both (getting a 10 on each), while the elf will fail the Con check (since he gets a 9).
Example 2: Human with 8 Dex / 12 Con, Elf with 10 Dex / 10 Con. They both need to make a relatively easy DC 10 Dex and Con check, and aren't rushed, in combat, etc. Both can take a 10, but only the elf will succeed on both (getting a 10 on each), while the human will fail the Dex check (since he gets a 9).
Which leads us to the rest of your post:
If we did just give these dwarves a penalty to Dex, Con, Int, and Cha, then humans are even better than these dwarves as compared to their current "+1 to everything" (as is in the current packet). That is, the base dwarf with straight 10s can't take a 10 and succeed on any Dex, Con, Int, or Cha check, while the human can succeed at all of them. That's a huge difference when you compare that to the current packet (where both races can take a 10 and succeed on all of them).
Because of the mechanics, the penalty is actually a penalty. The -1 or -2 penalty to an attribute check is actually a bigger penalty than it might look like at first glance.
I agree. +2 / -2 works fine. I like a little more options than that. Generally, I have a "+2 to A. Optional: +2 to B or C, and -2 to X or Y" approach to races and attributes (though with some variation, depending on the race).
But, it's good to keep in mind what those penalties actually are, and humans getting +1 to everything is better than "these dwarves get -1 to Dex, Con, Int, and Cha." At least, it's better for all non-human races, as it stands. As always, play what you like
Ahh, but is it all humans, or just human adventurers that get the +1 to everything?
As has been the case with all prior editions, a first level player character is not Joe Average, fresh off the farm (and yes, some people play that way, but the game mechanics have never been on their side).
(Also, unless something's changed since the last time I looked at the playtest rules, the +1 from class means a level 1 human's range of possible stats is 4–20.)
Last edited:
n00bdragon
First Post
I hate stat bonuses and penalties equally. Why on earth should a half-orc fighter be better at fighting than a human fighter simply because he's physically stronger? You can justify this from a dozen simulationist standpoints without issue, but D&D isn't a simulationist game and when you offer something like race as a choice (as opposed to your species being immutable in real life) you inevitably end up with people who want to be fighters choosing to be half-orcs simply for the bonus. Don't believe me? Give races a +10 bonus to one stat in your home game for a few sessions and see what races people pair with what classes.
So yes, a lack of bonuses is a penalty in many ways. If the bonus is strong enough then not having it is a penalty in itself.
So yes, a lack of bonuses is a penalty in many ways. If the bonus is strong enough then not having it is a penalty in itself.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
Yeah, you could say that, but then the mechanics aren't really describing the world, and it gets problematic for NPCs. Does a town guard use those "extraordinary human" stats, or does he use "normal human" stats? Where will those stats be listed? Do we have "extraordinary dwarf" and "normal dwarf" stats? Do we have "extraordinary bugbear" and "normal bugbear" stats?
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
That's easy: When the baseline assumption for stat modifiers is set to above 0.
"But let's take Next as an example. Humans get +1 to everything. That's your baseline."
Why?
I understand that mathematically the difference between -1 and 0 is the same as the difference between 0 and +1, but why, across all of the editions of D&D, across all of the various bonuses and penalties that races have been given, is the way Next is currently handling humans the one for which people have latched onto the idea that this moves the baseline, and now every other race that doesn't have this is actually operating at a penalty? Nobody talks about how 3.5 Elves are operating at a -1 Feat penalty. Nobody talks about how 4e Tieflings are operating at a -1 Encounter-Reroll-Power penalty. Nobody talks about how AD&D Humans are operating at a -4 AC-vs-Giant-Attacks penalty. What's so special about this particular bonus that it for some reason counts as "moving the baseline" compared to literally any other racial bonus or penalty in the history of the game?
Note that I think that +1 everything is a poor way of representing humans in D&D; I would very much like Next's human design to go away and be replaced with something else. I just don't understand why the community has seized onto the idea that, unlike any other racial modifier, this one counts as moving the baseline, and Dwarves and Elves and stuff are now secretly operating under a secret penalty.
Why?
I understand that mathematically the difference between -1 and 0 is the same as the difference between 0 and +1, but why, across all of the editions of D&D, across all of the various bonuses and penalties that races have been given, is the way Next is currently handling humans the one for which people have latched onto the idea that this moves the baseline, and now every other race that doesn't have this is actually operating at a penalty? Nobody talks about how 3.5 Elves are operating at a -1 Feat penalty. Nobody talks about how 4e Tieflings are operating at a -1 Encounter-Reroll-Power penalty. Nobody talks about how AD&D Humans are operating at a -4 AC-vs-Giant-Attacks penalty. What's so special about this particular bonus that it for some reason counts as "moving the baseline" compared to literally any other racial bonus or penalty in the history of the game?
Note that I think that +1 everything is a poor way of representing humans in D&D; I would very much like Next's human design to go away and be replaced with something else. I just don't understand why the community has seized onto the idea that, unlike any other racial modifier, this one counts as moving the baseline, and Dwarves and Elves and stuff are now secretly operating under a secret penalty.
Li Shenron
Legend
That it feels like being genetically superior.
Similar Threads
