D&D 5E Racial Weaknesses

[AeroDm]

I think the problem with negative rules are two fold.

(1) If the rule is static (i.e. a -2 penalty to dexterity or bad at social skills) then you end up with self selection. The only people who will take it are those for whom the penalty is not that big of a deal and you've just shut out an area of the game to that race or class or whatever.

(2) If the rule is dynamic (i.e. you RP the penalty and get some bonus) we have the benefit that it can't be ignored, but we still have a perverse self-selection. The player that enjoys having a jerk of a character takes "bad in social settings" and now has an excuse to RP being a jerk. The player that likes being the center of attention takes "clumsy" and suddenly wants to go into every china shop. For these players, they are still abusing the rule.

The only time it works really well are for the players who wanted to take it seriously and have their weakness come up only at appropriate and interesting times. The problem is, they would probably have taken it seriously without the rules, and so adding the rules really only invites exploitation.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Uhm, they are not supposed to be cool, that's why they are called flaws.

When they're a flaw for the other players, it's a problem.

 

[Jester David]

Something I was thinking of recently was racial minimums and maximums. No penalties, so dwarves wouldn't get a -1 or -2 Charisma but they could have a maximum Cha score. Say a 17.
That's still high enough to play a charisma character, and if you're rolling it's likely not an issue. But it means that some races would have the potential to be better, to have a higher maximum. Dwarves bards would still work, they just wouldn't be as awesome as, say, a halfling bard that might be able to rock a 19. There could even be a rule where if you rolled an 18 and tried to exceed the maximum then another stat gets boosted by the difference (possibly set in advance like whatever stat the race gets a bonus in, such as Con in the dwarf example).

 

[Remathilis]

Something I was thinking of recently was racial minimums and maximums. No penalties, so dwarves wouldn't get a -1 or -2 Charisma but they could have a maximum Cha score. Say a 17.
That's still high enough to play a charisma character, and if you're rolling it's likely not an issue. But it means that some races would have the potential to be better, to have a higher maximum. Dwarves bards would still work, they just wouldn't be as awesome as, say, a halfling bard that might be able to rock a 19. There could even be a rule where if you rolled an 18 and tried to exceed the maximum then another stat gets boosted by the difference (possibly set in advance like whatever stat the race gets a bonus in, such as Con in the dwarf example).

I have no problem with dwarves being limited to a 17 cha and needing a minimum 9 con to be a dwarf. Or elves having a requisite 9 int and 17 con max. It might penalize dwarf bards, but not nearly as much as the -2 did in 3.5.

 

[Li Shenron]

Sometime what defines us is not our strengths, but our weaknesses. While 5e classes and races might have areas they are less strong, this is not the same thing as a weakness.

I think the common wisdom is that racial stat penalties are gone and not coming back. They push people to certain classes and making playing some options in-optimal despite potential story ties.

But what of more flavorful weaknesses tied to situations or interactions?
For example, dwarves are normally uncharismatic. Perhaps they have disadvantage on Charisma contests with non-dwarves. A dwarf bard with charm skills up the wazoo might not treat disadvantage like too much of a penalty, but they're still less diplomatic than say a halfling, which might have disadvantage at strength contest instead.

This does not need to be a core rule, but might be a fun module. An optional set of rules for more frail elves, dour dwarves, distracts gnomes, and corruptible humans.

Thoughts?

It would definitely be fun to try, but I don't think it would solve the problem. Gamers will still want to play a Dwarf Bard and complain that any penalty whatever small is unfair because they feel entitled to their character concept.

I had no problems with racial penalties to ability by the way. I am not a wimp who thinks that if I don't have an 18 in my primary score I cannot play the game (not even a 16 for what matters).

 

[steenan]

(1) If the rule is static (i.e. a -2 penalty to dexterity or bad at social skills) then you end up with self selection. The only people who will take it are those for whom the penalty is not that big of a deal and you've just shut out an area of the game to that race or class or whatever.

(2) If the rule is dynamic (i.e. you RP the penalty and get some bonus) we have the benefit that it can't be ignored, but we still have a perverse self-selection. The player that enjoys having a jerk of a character takes "bad in social settings" and now has an excuse to RP being a jerk. The player that likes being the center of attention takes "clumsy" and suddenly wants to go into every china shop. For these players, they are still abusing the rule.

There is also the FATE approach: the GM, in given situation, gives the player a choice between acting out the flaw and receiving a reward or ignoring the flaw and not gaining anything (or, in some versions, giving away a resource).
This way, a player can't overuse a flaw or use it only when it's not problematic, but also isn't burdened with a constant penalty.