Pathfinder 1E Why racial ability score penalties?

[Wiseblood]

I hate them. Well, I don't hate them all the time but I despise them at the best of times. When char/gen is point buy then I really hate them. How do you feel about them?

 

[Crothian]

I like them. I like the idea that some species are less then average with some attributes. It helps keep the different species mechanically different.

 

[Kinak]

Ability score modifiers and point buy are a weird match in general. If you can already make whatever kind of character you want, why bother with the extra step?

I use a modified rolling scheme, though, so they work out fine for me.

I'd really be quite sad with dropping penalties. Character and races can be defined just as much by what they're bad at as what they're good at. Cutting half of that off seems like a waste.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Sunseeker]

Eh, I like Pathfinder's "more bonuses than penalties" system. It makes it feel like races are a little more naturally diverse, but that they still have weaknesses.

 

[Jester David]

Eh, I like Pathfinder's "more bonuses than penalties" system. It makes it feel like races are a little more naturally diverse, but that they still have weaknesses.

Agreed.
I like the net bonus but enjoy that not all races are human plus. I like the give and take. If there are just bonuses it becomes to easy to just think of no bonus as being a penalty.

 

[Sunseeker]

Agreed.
I like the net bonus but enjoy that not all races are human plus. I like the give and take. If there are just bonuses it becomes to easy to just think of no bonus as being a penalty.

Exactly, and while in some cases that might be reasonable for certain races, I don't like that as an underlying assumption on the game. "nothing" should not be the same as "negative". It gives way to power creep far too easily.

 

[Umbran]

If there are going to be stat bonuses, you need to have *some* sort of penalty to keep things even. Putting the penalties out in some other part of the character makes it difficult to tell if you're balanced. Keeping them in ability scores makes it pretty easy to tell if you're balanced. Simple, effective. I'm good with them.

 

[Manabarbs]

I don't think they make that big of a difference, because players aren't dumb. People don't play race/class combinations where the penalties make much of a difference, and when they do, they buy the stat up high enough (or put a large enough die roll in the stat) such that the character is way above average at that thing anyway. Once the character's actually together, it doesn't matter that Grumblebunch the Dwarf Bard has a racial charisma penalty, because chances are he's going to be one of the most (likely THE most) charismatic person in the party regardless.

The primary impacts of penalties are aesthetic - and a lot of people very reasonable enjoy the aesthetics of ability score penalties - and making certain race/class combinations less appealing. They don't do a good job at all of making races feel any different in play, because a -1 on a d20 roll is essentially imperceptible to begin with.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Sometimes, it's the shortcomings of a race that make it charming.

In Dragonlance, the gully dwarves are stupid. They get a major penalty to their Int score. I know, I know. Not everyone wants to play a gully dwarf. But some folks do, and you can't represent them without that penalty. Gully dwarves just do not work in systems like 4e with no ability score penalty.

 

[Sunseeker]

If there are going to be stat bonuses, you need to have *some* sort of penalty to keep things even. Putting the penalties out in some other part of the character makes it difficult to tell if you're balanced. Keeping them in ability scores makes it pretty easy to tell if you're balanced. Simple, effective. I'm good with them.

I would rather see more situational drawbacks than flat penalties, because as Manabarbs said, people tend to build around penalties so they're irrelevent.

Lets take elves, elves get a -2 to con 'cause they're usually frail. How else can we represent that? A vulnerability to bludgeoning? Perhaps they have a limited diet so they must buy special rations? Maybe a penalty to saving throws against poison and disease?

We could do the same for bonuses as well of course, and I would heartily support that. Moving away from pure +X/-Y adjustments is a good direction I think.