Balancing out Racial Abilities

[Mistwell]

There's a guy who derived point values for all PHB races and for many others from Volo's Guide. You can search on it fairly easily if you want to see what the makers of the game probably valued racial abilities at.

Turns out, darkvision is worth 0 points.

I have no idea how he could conclude that. The lack of darkvision is why our game currently has zero humans. We're a 100% darkvision party, and that has saved our butt many times. We use light sometimes of course, but the ability to go completely dark and still move is powerful. I think it's only worth less if someone in the party doesn't have it and you have to have lights on sometimes...or if you're not using light source stuff in games. [Edit: I see he gives it a .5 value...same as a weapon proficiency. That seems...well off. Darkvision is worth more than that.]

 

[Mistwell]

As this thread is starting to do exactly what I didn't want, I will not be replying to any further posts concerning what is valued at what, etc. since it is all subjective. What value does X have to Y? Which is "better"? These are pointless questions. I have already evaluated them in the comparison shown on the table in the OP.

I get that and respect that. However, the rest of us are talking with each other about the topic as well. So, they're not pointless questions to everyone here.

 

[guachi]

I have no idea how he could conclude that. The lack of darkvision is why our game currently has zero humans. We're a 100% darkvision party, and that has saved our butt many times. We use light sometimes of course, but the ability to go completely dark and still move is powerful. I think it's only worth less if someone in the party doesn't have it and you have to have lights on sometimes...or if you're not using light source stuff in games. [Edit: I see he gives it a .5 value...same as a weapon proficiency. That seems...well off. Darkvision is worth more than that.]

You can see from what I quoted that dark vision is a "lesser trait" worth zero points. What he's saying is that, according to his calculations, WOTC values dark vision at zero points as it was the only way he could get the main races to balance at 12 points each.

 

[Mistwell]

You can see from what I quoted that dark vision is a "lesser trait" worth zero points. What he's saying is that, according to his calculations, WOTC values dark vision at zero points as it was the only way he could get the main races to balance at 12 points each.

He ranked it .5 not zero, and along with a cantrip - which clearly WOTC does not value as zero. I think his 12 point system is likely not the system WOTC used. It's probably closer to a 25 point system or even a 100 point system to allow for a lot more room to play with the stats, and by trying to squeeze it into 12 he ended up having to round down everything and squeeze too many things into the same category.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Wow, I spend an afternoon and evening playing (16 hours straight LOL!) and LOTS of feedback! Cool. I'll try to get to most of the points you all have brought up, but if I miss anything I apologize for it. Anyway, here we go:

When I mentioned the discussions we've had as a group, and reiterated my point, it was because my players agree with me (not because I didn't want to express their opinions). Now, mostly they ARE new to D&D, and I believe they are hesitant to disagree with me knowing I have more experience, but that is why I am doing it this way: to try to get them involved in the game and make it their own, as well as mine.

We didn't have time to discuss the changes in great detail, but I had time before the entire group was together to go over much of it with the others. For the most part, they liked them and had some suggestions. One player asked about switching out proficiency and advantage for Sleight of Hand (for Gnome) with maybe Deception or Persuasion. I'm fine with the idea, but when I prompted him about WHY, asking for a reason solely based on the racial concept (not tied into a particular class), we couldn't come up with anything to justify it. That isn't to say we won't think of a reason, or one of you might have a suggestion that works, but for now the idea is benched.

I don't run my games as a tyranny. Before any changes or house-rules are implemented, everyone has to agree (or at the very least, not object LOL) to them and why we have them.

GNOME & HALFLING SIZE & ENCUMBRANCE

First, they aren't adult "humans", they are adult gnomes and halflings. While I agree the 40-50 pounds estimate is low, and human little people in our world are stronger than many people think, gnomes and halflings aren't human little people--they are a different race entirely.

If we decide there is no Strength penalty or encumbrance penalty, then it must be because these races are exceptionally powerful given their height/weight ratio and muscle mass. That could well be the case, but it becomes a game-world decision.

But in the time we had yesterday, a player brought up the idea of the Small races making other Strength-based actions as easily or well as Medium characters. Can a Gnome and Halfling Long Jump as far as Human or Tiefling? But then another brought up Dwarves. They are shorter as well, with shorter legs, how well would they do in Jumping? ("I canno' make the distance, you'll have to toss me.")

So far our group agreement is we want the rules to make sense, but we agree not at the expense of too much added complexity. If we don't find a solution that works, we probably won't end up changing anything. But for now, the group will keep talking it over along with the other points.

One point about armor. A house-rule we will most likely end up using is armor that is worn only counts half its weight towards encumbrance. It makes sense that wearing the armor as intended is much easier than trying to carry a suit around.

Strength is not just a measure of muscular power, but also the characters ability to use their Strength effectively. When I was in high school, I only weighed 145 lbs at 5' 8", but I could leg press just over 1000 lbs, the second most in the entire school (the running-back for the football team beat me by 90 lbs...). As most people with any knowledge understand how hard you hit starts with your footing. Power travels up through your base, with the turn of the hips, into the shoulders and finally into the arms. That is why I didn't just impose a -2 or worse Strength penalty. I didn't want to penalize Strength-based Small character builds in combat this way.

Another aspect of how much encumbrance a character can carry is the amount of space available on them. Medium creatures, being larger, simply have more room on their frames to carry more. The chimpanzee argument is a good point, however, but that more justifies how Small Gnomes and Halflings COULD hit as hard, but less so for how much they can carry IMO.

Those ideas do make me think however, that I might suggest to the group a simpler change that the encumbrance penalty only applies to the amount of weight carried, not the amount they can lift, drag, or pull. Food for thought and discussion.

I don't know exactly what the designers were thinking here. I would prefer a simple, elegant solution, sure. At any rate, honestly, it is NOT a big deal except that is just tugs at my sense of plausibility.

DRAGONBORN TOUGH HIDE

My concerns about this is something like the Barbarian and Monk Dragonborn. Unarmored Defense as a Barbarian already grants Con bonus to AC, rendering Tough Hide pointless in that aspect. True the DR is still there. The Monk Dragonborn would end up with Dex, Con, & Wis to AC. Not a game breaker normally, but taken to the extreme (AC 25), it gets OP.

As far as Dragonborn not wearing armor, that would certainly be the case in some situations, but I don't see a problem with it. Dragonborn with average to good Constitutions (say up to +2) would not bother wearing light armors, sure. Those with great or better scores, +3 to +5 even, would tend to avoid medium armors as well. The natural hide of their dragon ancestry is tougher and more protective than manufactured armor. However, heavy armor for warrior-type characters would still be better than the Tough Hide feature. It doesn't vary too much from the AC feature of the Dragon Hide racial feat, anyway.

HALF-ORC BROAD BACK

Yeah, we all agreed the advantage on all Strength checks was too much. For now, the rewrite is this:

Broad Back. As a bonus action, you can steel yourself for great feats of Strength. You gain advantage on the next non-skilled Strength-based ability check you make during this turn.

In other words, for things like bending bards, breaking down a door, holding open a closing portal, the character could gain advantage on the check by spending their bonus action for that turn. It wouldn't help with Athletics or Strength-based Intimidation written this way. And with the associated cost of a bonus action, that could be a factor depending on the situation.

Finally, since I am not allowing the big guy races at this point, it allows Half-Orc to fill that role in some ways.

SHADOWSIGHT

Since we play in the basement, we had some fun turning off the lights and walking around making "Perception checks" in the dim light provided by the tiny, remote cellar windows. It WAS fun LOL! Later in the night, we stepped outside for a chilly bracer to give us a boost to keep playing until 4 AM and thought again about Darkness RAW. We decided this as a basic concept: If you can read in the light, it is bright light at that range. If you can see the words, but not make them out (due to light conditions, not distance), it is dim light at that range. If you can't see the words at all, it is darkness.

We agreed the idea of a clear starry night or moonlit night being Darkness was ridiculous. It takes a bit for your eyes to adjust, sure, but then you can see fine. We agree about the disadvantage on Perception checks, still (you can't see as clearly to be certain), but yeah, let's keep those Elves out camping under the stars and NOT bumping into everything.

It would make things easier to just remove the range limit for Shadowsight and Darkvision. Most of the time when they are needed, the ranges aren't a big factor IMO.

SUBRACES & ABILITY SCORE INCREASES

I do like the versatility of choice in some ways that would lend it to "subrace choice" if the player wanted. I already changed Half-Elves to getting Dex +1, Int +1, and one ASI of choice. I am still tweaking the ability score modifiers for my group to finally review.

Any subrace that a player wants to play for flavor could easily be represented by the players choices in skills and possibly feats instead of having to grant special racial abilities.

Honestly, the group (including myself a bit) are still on the fence about this. But either the other races have to be brought up to the same power-level as the Dwarf and Elf races, or those races have to be brought down. The easiest way is to remove subraces abilities.

IN SUMMARY

The short time we had for discussion led to some great points by some of the players.

Final point: as to the discussions of this thread deviating from my OP. I don't care if posters debate such things, but when they address myself in their post, that is when it bothers me. You're right, they aren't pointless for everyone here, just me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You can see from what I quoted that dark vision is a "lesser trait" worth zero points. What he's saying is that, according to his calculations, WOTC values dark vision at zero points as it was the only way he could get the main races to balance at 12 points each.

The races definately don't balance at any given point value, unfortunately. Darkvision is overvalued by some, though. If someone's group doesn't have any humans because of darkvision, that is faaar outside the statistical norm of dnd groups.

We didn't have time to discuss the changes in great detail, but I had time before the entire group was together to go over much of it with the others. For the most part, they liked them and had some suggestions. One player asked about switching out proficiency and advantage for Sleight of Hand (for Gnome) with maybe Deception or Persuasion. I'm fine with the idea, but when I prompted him about WHY, asking for a reason solely based on the racial concept (not tied into a particular class), we couldn't come up with anything to justify it. That isn't to say we won't think of a reason, or one of you might have a suggestion that works, but for now the idea is benched.

Maybe it just feels more right to them? Certainly does to me.

GNOME & HALFLING SIZE & ENCUMBRANCE

First, they aren't adult "humans", they are adult gnomes and halflings. While I agree the 40-50 pounds estimate is low, and human little people in our world are stronger than many people think, gnomes and halflings aren't human little people--they are a different race entirely.

If we decide there is no Strength penalty or encumbrance penalty, then it must be because these races are exceptionally powerful given their height/weight ratio and muscle mass. That could well be the case, but it becomes a game-world decision.

But in the time we had yesterday, a player brought up the idea of the Small races making other Strength-based actions as easily or well as Medium characters. Can a Gnome and Halfling Long Jump as far as Human or Tiefling? But then another brought up Dwarves. They are shorter as well, with shorter legs, how well would they do in Jumping? ("I canno' make the distance, you'll have to toss me.")

So far our group agreement is we want the rules to make sense, but we agree not at the expense of too much added complexity. If we don't find a solution that works, we probably won't end up changing anything. But for now, the group will keep talking it over along with the other points.

They may not be adult humans, but they are adults. Toddlers and other little kids are weak because they haven't developed their muscles. There is no reason to assume that Gnomes and Halflings are so weak as adults that they can't out armwrestle, or carry more weight than, human 10 year olds.

Also, you're right, they aren't humans. By the same token that you can justify making them weaker than a human of the same size, you can easily justify them being stronger than a human of he same size, or anything in between. My whole point was simply that their height doesn't necessitate them being that weak.

As for armor, you'd probably want to reduce the absolute wieght of armor, as well. Plate armor for a 4 foot tall person weighs much less than the same armor for a 6 foot tall person.

Also, if you do reduce their carrying, jumping, lifting, etc, I'd consider bringing back a small bonus to AC when targeted by medium or larger creatures.

And please just consider some consolidation of features. That's just a really long list of features. Way too many moving parts for a 5e race.

DRAGONBORN TOUGH HIDE

My concerns about this is something like the Barbarian and Monk Dragonborn. Unarmored Defense as a Barbarian already grants Con bonus to AC, rendering Tough Hide pointless in that aspect. True the DR is still there. The Monk Dragonborn would end up with Dex, Con, & Wis to AC. Not a game breaker normally, but taken to the extreme (AC 25), it gets OP.

As far as Dragonborn not wearing armor, that would certainly be the case in some situations, but I don't see a problem with it. Dragonborn with average to good Constitutions (say up to +2) would not bother wearing light armors, sure. Those with great or better scores, +3 to +5 even, would tend to avoid medium armors as well. The natural hide of their dragon ancestry is tougher and more protective than manufactured armor. However, heavy armor for warrior-type characters would still be better than the Tough Hide feature. It doesn't vary too much from the AC feature of the Dragon Hide racial feat, anyway.

Well, 5e AC calculations never stat, so you'd never had a Monk with Dex+Wis+Con unless you make the Con a bonus to AC. My suggestion was to consider making it redundant with the barbarian feature.

A better suggestions, upon reflection, would be to simply give them DR against non magical damage equal to their Con mod. +1 at 5th, 11th, and 17th. Offer a feat that adds proficiency mod while not wearing heavy armor. Something that improves their DR, rather than messing with AC calculations and borking bounded accuracy. And it wouldn't make all their art super weird. Canonically, they wear armor, and a lot of their art is heavily armored. IDK, it's just weird to give them features that contradict that, to me.

HALF-ORC BROAD BACK

Yeah, we all agreed the advantage on all Strength checks was too much. For now, the rewrite is this:

Broad Back. As a bonus action, you can steel yourself for great feats of Strength. You gain advantage on the next non-skilled Strength-based ability check you make during this turn.

In other words, for things like bending bards, breaking down a door, holding open a closing portal, the character could gain advantage on the check by spending their bonus action for that turn. It wouldn't help with Athletics or Strength-based Intimidation written this way. And with the associated cost of a bonus action, that could be a factor depending on the situation.

Finally, since I am not allowing the big guy races at this point, it allows Half-Orc to fill that role in some ways.

No Goliaths and Firbolgs? Man, that makes me sad.

But you're getting there, for sure. I'd take into consideration that forcing a door and some of that other stuff is an Athletics check in 5e. What about half-proficiency for Strength Checks in which you aren't proficient, including Saving Throws if you aren't proficient in them, and 1/SR you can reroll a failed Strength Check with Advantage? Combined with acting like they are a size larger for carrying, pushing, lifting, dragging, etc, this would get the point across quite well.

It would make things easier to just remove the range limit for Shadowsight and Darkvision. Most of the time when they are needed, the ranges aren't a big factor IMO.

I agree.

SUBRACES & ABILITY SCORE INCREASES

I do like the versatility of choice in some ways that would lend it to "subrace choice" if the player wanted. I already changed Half-Elves to getting Dex +1, Int +1, and one ASI of choice. I am still tweaking the ability score modifiers for my group to finally review.

Any subrace that a player wants to play for flavor could easily be represented by the players choices in skills and possibly feats instead of having to grant special racial abilities.

Honestly, the group (including myself a bit) are still on the fence about this. But either the other races have to be brought up to the same power-level as the Dwarf and Elf races, or those races have to be brought down. The easiest way is to remove subraces abilities.

You've already made both races more powerful than their subrace having counterparts. The elf is at least on par with the PHB half elf, if not more powerful.
The problem is, you can't make a wood elf with that. A wood elf fighter, ranger, etc, does not have wizard spells. You can make an old school ELF as a class, sure, but even back then it was annoying that I couldn't make Legolas except by making a human fighter and pretending it's an elf. With your version, I'd have to either do the same, or make a Half-Elf and pretend it's a wood elf?

It's not about power, it's about the concepts.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Maybe it just feels more right to them? Certainly does to me.

Yeah, this was my most experienced player making this suggestion. Granted, even he has only been playing for about 18 months, but much more than the others who have been playing less than 2 months!

Anyway, I guess if it feels right to him, that is fine, but WHY? My reasoning for Gnomes getting Sleight of Hand was their culture of working with small, delicate items (tinkering) and tricks/pranks (such as illusions, etc.). I was thinking Persausion or Deception possibly because of a story-telling and tall-tales culture??? It's an option, which to me makes some sense, so I will propose it to the players.

They may not be adult humans, but they are adults. Toddlers and other little kids are weak because they haven't developed their muscles. There is no reason to assume that Gnomes and Halflings are so weak as adults that they can't out armwrestle, or carry more weight than, human 10 year olds.

I never said they weren't stronger than a 10-year old human child. I am saying they aren't as strong as a 20-year old human adult.

Also, you're right, they aren't humans. By the same token that you can justify making them weaker than a human of the same size, you can easily justify them being stronger than a human of he same size, or anything in between. My whole point was simply that their height doesn't necessitate them being that weak.

I understand that. If 5E had given them something to reflect their smaller size, such as a Strength -1 even (Kobolds get -2 and are only 2.5 feet tall on average!), I might not think it was enough but would probably let it slide since it IS there. But, they didn't, so I think there should be something.

As for armor, you'd probably want to reduce the absolute wieght of armor, as well. Plate armor for a 4 foot tall person weighs much less than the same armor for a 6 foot tall person.

Also, if you do reduce their carrying, jumping, lifting, etc, I'd consider bringing back a small bonus to AC when targeted by medium or larger creatures.

I would certainly reduce the absolute weight as well! There are variant rules about adjusting such things as refitting armors, but nothing addresses Small characters unfortunately.

And please just consider some consolidation of features. That's just a really long list of features. Way too many moving parts for a 5e race.

Yeah, this is something I hated from the beginning. I have been racking my brain trying to think of some power-wise comparible feature I could give Gnome and Halflings to make them more attractive on a power-basis. Instead of getting a few good abilities, they are a collection of weaker ones. I will definitely keep working on this! If you have any suggestions for "better" abilities, I am all ears!

Well, 5e AC calculations never stat, so you'd never had a Monk with Dex+Wis+Con unless you make the Con a bonus to AC. My suggestion was to consider making it redundant with the barbarian feature.

A better suggestions, upon reflection, would be to simply give them DR against non magical damage equal to their Con mod. +1 at 5th, 11th, and 17th. Offer a feat that adds proficiency mod while not wearing heavy armor. Something that improves their DR, rather than messing with AC calculations and borking bounded accuracy. And it wouldn't make all their art super weird. Canonically, they wear armor, and a lot of their art is heavily armored. IDK, it's just weird to give them features that contradict that, to me.

I get your point, but it isn't affecting bounded accuracy at all. They would have a Natural AC, so any heavier armor worn over it would replace the ability. However, one thing that bothers me is when racial features become redundant once class is selected. Consider Mountain Dwarves and bonus medium and heavy armor proficencies. Suppose you make a Mountain Dwarf Fighter. Those racial bonus proficiencies are now worthless.

Making the Tough Hide redundant with the Barbarian feature would do the same thing so I am hesitant to work it that way.

Also, I don't mind the stacking for Monks. I've discussed it with two players so far and it makes sense in-game. Your barbarian Con bonus to AC is due to a toughening of your muscles and general increase in hardiness to throw off attacks that might otherwise have damaged you. The monk feature represents your improved understand of others' thinking and attacks (i.e. Wisdom). If someone has levels in both classes and develops both abilities, why couldn't they benefit from both? Even at Epic levels in the case of Dex 20, Con 20 AND Wis 20, a 25 AC is fantastic but hardly game breaking IMO. At lower levels, with most of these bonuses being +1 to maybe a +3, at best you would probably be looking at an AC of 16 or 17. Nothing really OP there, either.

No Goliaths and Firbolgs? Man, that makes me sad.

LOL!! That sounds like one of my players. He was thinking of a Goliath when we started, but I didn't have the book and at a glance they seemed a bit OP. I'll probably bring other races in over time, but not for now.

But you're getting there, for sure. I'd take into consideration that forcing a door and some of that other stuff is an Athletics check in 5e. What about half-proficiency for Strength Checks in which you aren't proficient, including Saving Throws if you aren't proficient in them, and 1/SR you can reroll a failed Strength Check with Advantage? Combined with acting like they are a size larger for carrying, pushing, lifting, dragging, etc, this would get the point across quite well.

Actually, RAW, forcing open a door isn't an Athletics check. But anyway, I like some of the other suggestions and will add them to the list fo consideration. Thanks!

You've already made both races more powerful than their subrace having counterparts. The elf is at least on par with the PHB half elf, if not more powerful.
The problem is, you can't make a wood elf with that. A wood elf fighter, ranger, etc, does not have wizard spells. You can make an old school ELF as a class, sure, but even back then it was annoying that I couldn't make Legolas except by making a human fighter and pretending it's an elf. With your version, I'd have to either do the same, or make a Half-Elf and pretend it's a wood elf?

Since we are talking about retaining subraces in some ways, for the Magical Bloodline feature I could allow the player the choice of which Spell List they choose from. So, the Wood Elf could choose from, say, Druid or Ranger if the player wanted to flavor their character that way. A Drow might select from Warlock or Sorcerer instead of Wizard. Since female Drow are often priestesses, maybe the player would want to pick Cleric. They ability is the same, but the player chooses the Spell List, just like the Magic Initiate feat.

Adding the versatility of choice, the player would get Dex +2 and then pick the ASI for Wisdom for a Wood Elf, Int or Chr if they wanted for a Drow, or any other non-Dex ability. In earlier editions, Wood Elves were strong, but not wise, getting a bonus to Str and a penalty to Wis.

It's not about power, it's about the concepts.

Well, I think the concepts are just as easily represented in game-play and flavor of choices for skills and later feats. Giving them the "specialness" through features is a bit of fluff. And, when I look at the attractiveness of races, too often are some races ignored because they just don't have the same level of abilities to make them attractive. I'm not saying that is right, but just the way I see people choosing races.

Look at how often Gnomes (and Paladins) are put down on this forum? You read it often. I think a lot of players wouldn't care if gnomes were removed from the game entirely. Halflings are picked occassionally, but not as often as most of the other races.

Your experiences may be different, but those are mine.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Being that this is a "subjective" exercise with little or no room for discussion - just a series of "subjective" ideas being offered and rebuked? - I had a thought for anyone else reading this thread and looking for different ideas. No offense to anyone else who is showing a lot more work and effort on their part. Personally ("subjectively"?), I like to simplify when I can.

Instead of defining each race with a preset of abilities, quirks, etc., which summarily categorize and profile every single individual of a non-human culture (think about it, you know it's true!), let the players pick their features first and then just name their race. Do we really need to limit our options because of someone else's preconceived notions of how an entire race is portrayed? Or wait for someone to house rule and customize new options to fit an idea?

So, for example, you can rule that every character gains a +2 bonus to one ability score of their choice, and a +1 bonus to a different ability score of their choice. Everybody gets to choose, and they get the same as everyone else. And less stereotypes! Problem #1 solved.

Next, pick your three racial abilities. Someone should compile a short list of the most commonly seen abilities and traits shared between all races. For example, a generic trait might get your choice of a +2 for any two skills of your choice, or proficiency in any two set of tools, or one of each. This could reflect your specialized background or upbringing. You can be a typical dwarf with a skill bonus in Craft and proficiency in Blacksmith tools, or the odd the dwarf who was raised differently.

Other ideas: automatic proficiency in two weapons of your choice, pick two bonus languages, and gain a free feat. (Yup, take that exclusive free feat away from the Human Variant so we can stop calling them "Human Variant" and just play "Humans" again, but without losing the free feat!).

If you want to take it a step further, introduce special traits, like Darkvision, that only apply to certain races but only if you can do it without excluding anybody. That means if the Gnomes can get Fey Magic that no one else can get, Humans (and all the others) should be able to get something unique as well. This is still part of the three picks each character gets to make, but they can only get one of these.

To me, this is much simpler approach to fixing something that is just annoying me but don't know how to fix it without reintroducing the same problems in a new way, or overcomplicating things and creating new problems. And if someone complains that they're missing a particular benefit or power, or they have fewer, well the trade-off is you get to pick everything. And maybe that's what some people want. Of course, this is all very "subjective" and not likely to be appealing to anyone but the person who thought of it. Enjoy!

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Instead of defining each race with a preset of abilities, quirks, etc., which summarily categorize and profile every single individual of a non-human culture (think about it, you know it's true!), let the players pick their features first and then just name their race. Do we really need to limit our options because of someone else's preconceived notions of how an entire race is portrayed? Or wait for someone to house rule and customize new options to fit an idea?

It is funny you brought this up as I was thinking of trying it. It was going to be something like this:

ASI +2
ASI +1, different ability
Pick three features from a minor list.
Pick two features from a moderate list.
Pick one feature from a prime list.

Taking all the options available from the books and putting them into one of the three lists, you could tailor make your race pretty much. But for a simple example:

ELF:
Dex +2, Chr +1
Three minor features: Fleet of Foot, Keen Senses, Trance
Two moderate: Darkvision, Fey Ancestry
Prime: Magical Bloodline

Of course, then the subjectiveness comes into which features would fall into which groups.

 

[guachi]

He ranked it .5 not zero, and along with a cantrip - which clearly WOTC does not value as zero. I think his 12 point system is likely not the system WOTC used. It's probably closer to a 25 point system or even a 100 point system to allow for a lot more room to play with the stats, and by trying to squeeze it into 12 he ended up having to round down everything and squeeze too many things into the same category.

You're responding to me but you're not responding to what I actually posted. I posted nothing that said that darkvision was 0.5 points. That was a different poster.

You can fault his math but since you haven't actually done any analysis yourself I have zero reason to actually believe you. Take the PHB races, assume they all have the same "cost" and then show me what you thing WOTC values each ability at. Knock yourself out.

He's the only person I'm aware of who has actually attempted to figure out racial abilities might cost, assuming all races have an equal "cost". Even so, there are some areas where the precise cost is unknown.

For example, the gnomish magic resistance is valued at 4 for each of Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma saves. On the assumption that Wisdom saves are used more often you could value Wisdom at 8 and the others at 2. That works just like valuing them all at 4 does.