Concerned About Ability Scores

[MatthewJHanson]

The classes also get to allocate a bonus, which includes the prime stat for the class, so in fact the race/class combos suggested in the playtest material will give matching non-humans the options of an 18 using the default array, and humans the option of a 19.

I'm not seeing how you get the 19.

Here's my math: 15 (highest choice in array) + 2 (for human) +1 (for class) = 18. Is there a flaw somewhere?

Yeah, and being a Dwarf is the only way to start with immunity to poison. Different races are different.

Your risk of getting poisoned is very campaign specific. In my experience it usually every few sessions. You will use your highest stat every single time you roll an attack.

 

[slobo777]

I'm not seeing how you get the 19.

Here's my math: 15 (highest choice in array) + 2 (for human) +1 (for class) = 18. Is there a flaw somewhere?
.

My bad, I mis-remembered the starting array (probably already added in the class bonus and counting it twice!)

 

[Connorsrpg]

The non-human ability bonuses to me used to represent how they are different (better and worse) when compared to a human. Now I don't know what to think.

So basically, non-humans are worse than humans in all areas bar 1 where they may be even (or worse again - depending on where the human +2 goes).

I liked it when human was the baseline - these new human bonuses make no sense to me.

I imagine this will not survive the playtest.

(I also have a theory the Wizards guys are looking at not quite extreme, but 'out there' options at either end to gauge responses and then will settle in the middle. Look at things like HPs b/w the 2 Playtests for eg. I am OK with this approach).

 

[pauljathome]

Ignore

 

[the Jester]

The non-human ability bonuses to me used to represent how they are different (better and worse) when compared to a human. Now I don't know what to think...

I liked it when human was the baseline - these new human bonuses make no sense to me.

I'm totally with you on this- I like giving humans +1 to best and worst stats, while nonhumans get +1 to two racial stats. That way most halflings have an edge on most humans in e.g. Dexterity.

I imagine this will not survive the playtest.

I certainly hope it doesn't.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm totally with you on this- I like giving humans +1 to best and worst stats, while nonhumans get +1 to two racial stats. That way most halflings have an edge on most humans in e.g. Dexterity.

I think you are on to something here.

Instead of top-loading the humans to give them a "strength," why not back-load them and reduce their "weaknesses" instead? Give all humans +2 bonus to their two lowest ability scores only. Now, humans do not excel in any one particular attribute; instead, they lack weaknesses. What do you think?

We are still only looking at half the problem, though.

The other half of the problem is that first-level characters are automatically the strongest creatures in the world--even stronger than iconic monsters known for their strength (giants). They really, really need to fix this before I will be able to take the game seriously. Awesome stats should be earned, not expected.

 

[pneumatik]

I must be the only person who likes how humans are statted out. Other races get cool abilities. They're better at whatever specif c thing their race is known for. Humans not only get to pick what they're good at, but they also don't get any sort of cool abilities. So they're probably better than dwarves at everything except being a dwarf, but they'll never have low light vision or stonecunning and have to worry about poison.

I dunno, I like it.

OTOH I am concerned a bit about trolls being no stronger than a starting human. That's a little weird.

 

[delericho]

In the context of the other races getting bonuses, I can't say that I find the bonuses for being human to be outrageous. And if the races are giving bonuses, then it makes some sense that the classes do also.

That said, I don't like that 5e assumes that every 1st level character will start with an 18 in his key stat. It's not a deal-breaker, but it's definitely a strike against the edition. YMMV, of course.

(And yes, I know that 4e did the same, and 3e wasn't far off. In retrospect, the inflation of stats in those editions was a distinct weakness.)

 

[Connorsrpg]

Another also hoping Trolls and Ogres and the like get a Strength boost.

So humans need something, but this idea completely throws what ability bonuses are out of whack for me. So if humans are above 'average' in all abilities, then who or what IS the average.

I just don't like it at all.

I like [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION]'s idea of a +1 to worst and best stat, or simply 2 +1's of the player's choice.

If we want something extra for humans, why not tap into that versatilty that is in most of their racial write-ups and grant them an extra Specialty. That would work better IMHO.

The Rogue seems to work OK with an extra BG. I don't think there is anywhere else a double Specialty would conflict. It is basically granting the extra feat humns got in the previous two editions (with others to come). If the player would rather an extra skill they simply choose Jack-of-all-Trades Specialty.

I would rather something like this than throwing the Ability bonuses out of whack.