D&D 5E Typical Race Abilities: +1, +1, −1

[nomotog]

In the RPG sense, when characters have a ‘dump ability’, it is a serious weakness. It means, the character is unlikely to succeed at certain tasks, and someone else will have to cover one during those tasks. Min-maxing encourages interdependence. It promotes teamwork.

This weakness becomes a story. Consider the X-Men. One doesnt ask Professor Xavier to run a marathon. One doesnt ask Wolverine to crack a computer code. These personal frustrations give a story challenges and motives to interact to achieve the challenges.

In D&D, one doesnt ask a low-Wis hero to do Perception. One doesnt ask a low-Str hero to break down doors.

In 5e, abilities seem like they will be more important. A weak ability seems likely be more painful. Saving throws will rely on every ability. Moreover, the emphasis on ‘ability checks’ to improvise makes each ability more likely to find use.

If you never have to brake down doors with your low Str, then is it actually a weakness? I think that is the difference between a flawed character an a minimax. You never dump a stat that you might actually use.

I hope abilities will be more important in 5 ed. They have been swerving back and forth on that issue a lot.

 

[Yaarel]

If you never have to brake down doors with your low Str, then is it actually a weakness? I think that is the difference between a flawed character an a minimax. You never dump a stat that you might actually use.

I hope abilities will be more important in 5 ed. They have been swerving back and forth on that issue a lot.

In my opinion, yes. It is a weakness, in a positiveness. Weaknesses are positive because they allow specialization, and necessitate cooperation.

For, D&D weaknesses mean a fun game of teamwork where each player enjoys a chance to shine.

But philosophically, weaknesses mean humanity and openness to infinity.

 

[Yaarel]

A good thing about the +1 +1 −1 approach is, a player has the free choice to except the penalty or not. Players who dislike any penalty that interferes with a particular character concept can opt out of it, and just take one +1. Meanwhile, players who want the extra bonus +1, can embrace weakness of the −1. They can build their character concept around the weakness.

 

[the Jester]

A good thing about the +1 +1 −1 approach is, a player has the free choice to except the penalty or not.

You keep asserting that this is a good thing, but I disagree; this is clearly a matter of taste. I think the option to not take a penalty should be wrapped up in the option to not play the race in question.

Min-maxing, in D&D terms, refers to (for instance) putting your +1 in an odd stat and your -1 in an odd stat as well, so you gain a higher overall bonus rather than the +1/-1 maintaining a meaningful balance. You are using the term in an entirely different way, which is fine, but I think you will find it makes clear communication difficult. Min-maxing (in the sense most rpgers use the term) doesn't encourage teamwork; it allows a character to work the system for extra bonuses. It's like when you play a really low-strength druid in 3e; who cares what your strength is?? When you need a strength score, you're a bear!

 

[Mistwell]

‘Underdog’ stories require min-maxing.

In this story, David is a Leader Guy, while Goliath is a Strong Guy.

While David was a leader, his fight with Goliath has nothing to do with him being a leader. It was a one on one battle, and the undersized poorly armed and armored guy won against the oversized strong well-armed and armored guy, mostly due to luck and/or divine intervention. It's not a story of min-maxing - you have to stretch the facts to try and make it about something like min-maxing, trying to shove that square peg into a round hole. You do not need min-maxing for an underdog story. The underdog is often the guy with simply average skills and abilities winning out against someone with extraordinary skills and abilities.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, Audie Murphy seems to have become a popular trope precisely as an Idealistic Guy (Charisma max).

He was not. Nothing about the story of Audie Murphy is about charisma. He was well liked because he became a legend for his luck and skill on the battlefield despite the odds being drastically against him for a variety of reasons.

It sure seems to me people give you an example, and you're simply determined to make everything fit your pet theory, so you're trying to force it into it even when it obviously doesn't fit. Not everything in life is min-maxed, and at some point you're going to have to admit that some stories we tell are not about min-maxed people, but simply ordinary people who win out in extraordinary circumstances.

Someone who is biographing his story might characterize him as a ‘Hero with Heart’, for example. In this case, he is both a Leader Guy and an Idealistic Guy. His idealism keeps his team together, but he is also the same person who keeps his team focused on specific goals. Hence he is an effective asset to the military.

And now you're just making stuff up about the real life figure of Audie Murphy. It's not just a fiction story, he was a real person, and none of that particularly well matches what happened.

 

[Yaarel]

You keep asserting that this is a good thing, but I disagree; this is clearly a matter of taste. I think the option to not take a penalty should be wrapped up in the option to not play the race in question.

Min-maxing, in D&D terms, refers to (for instance) putting your +1 in an odd stat and your -1 in an odd stat as well, so you gain a higher overall bonus rather than the +1/-1 maintaining a meaningful balance. You are using the term in an entirely different way, which is fine, but I think you will find it makes clear communication difficult. Min-maxing (in the sense most rpgers use the term) doesn't encourage teamwork; it allows a character to work the system for extra bonuses. It's like when you play a really low-strength druid in 3e; who cares what your strength is?? When you need a strength score, you're a bear!

I agree the Human Race is the adaptable and ‘optimizable’ race. The Human is an important, even miraculous magical Race.

Yet I disagree the game must force players to avoid Nonhuman races. For example, I care about mythological accuracy. When I play an Elf, my character concept is a mythologically accurate one - where Charisma and Intelligence are the most salient tropes. The Elf (Alfr) personifies success, superhuman beauty, innate magic, charm, persuasiveness, luck, prestige, fertility, wealth - success in every way. Charisma is essential. Intelligence in the sense of skill, logic, technology, memorization, and so forth is also vital. Also Wisdom is important in the sense of intuition and foresight. On the other hand, Dexterity is irrelevant. The point is, I should be able to play an archetype that I find fun and interesting. The game needs to be as flexible as possible. It shouldnt force me to play a Human in order to explore an Elf archetype.

The +1 +1 −1 approach helps because it can accommodate the needs of two different kinds of play styles. It helps players who play 3e Pathfinder, which uses the +2 +2 −2 model, where the weak ability is seriously deficient and prohibits certain kinds of character concepts. It also helps the players of 4e and - so far - 5e that has no penalty at all, so as to allow players as many character concepts as possible, while still offering a structured game with ‘types’ to play or play against.



Your post refers to ‘the matter of taste’. From your other posts, I am confident I would enjoy playing D&D at the same table with you. At the same time, ‘taste’ is important. D&D is notorious for how diverse its player base is. Creating rules that can accommodate players of different tastes at the same time is vital.

 

[Yaarel]

He was not. Nothing about the story of Audie Murphy is about charisma. He was well liked because he became a legend for his luck and skill on the battlefield despite the odds being drastically against him for a variety of reasons.

‘Well liked’, ‘legend’, and ‘luck’. Like I mentioned earlier, what D&D defines as the Charisma ability.



Remember, who a person is personally, and who a culture finds meaningful and interesting, are two different things.

One is a being. The other is a trope.

 

[Mistwell]

‘Well liked’, ‘legend’, and ‘luck’. Like I mentioned earlier, what D&D defines as the Charisma ability.



Remember, who a person is personally, and who a culture finds meaningful and interesting, are two different things.

One is a being. The other is a trope.

He was well liked because he became a focus for U.S. propaganda efforts to make him a hero, not because of his own actual personal charisma.

And that leads to my next point - now you're doing it to me, rather than my argument. It was bad enough when you twisted the facts to try and fit your theory, but you don't get to twist the post itself. You don't get to cherry pick a single sentence of a long point-on post and pretend that was my main point. My main point is what you cut out and didn't respond to - instead you removed context to again twist it to your point.

There are people in this world who are not min-maxed, but who achieve success as an underdog because of that. They are average people who achieve extraordinary things despite being average. That is my point. You can choose to not address it, but you can't choose to pretend that is not my main point.

 

[Yaarel]

For the record, Audie Murphy is above average mentally and below average physically. His remarkable idealism, appeal, tenacity, and so on, are what motivates him in the first place. In D&D terms, these are high mental abilities.