D&D 5E Racial Ability Scores: Default Low Ability Score

[Knightfall]

I am also a fan of the bonus malus scores, but with 5e that does not work well because of the bound accuracy.

E.g. you say elf gets a quasi -2 for a constitution of 8. That is fine for 3.x e, because the elfs con saving throw will progress with his class but it will definitely progress.
With 5e it might be that it won't . Like never. If the elf does play a wizard he got prof in int and wis saves. So at level 20 assuming he never put a stat increase into his 8 con he will be stuck with a -1 on con saves. A lowly poisonous or whatever critte could finish him off.
Unless of course your player puts his next 3 attribute increases not in feats but to get his con from 8 to 14, which is practically a must, if he wants to survive the average challenges of adventuring which include con saves. Exhaustion is deadly for this one. Poison. Swimming / running / climbing long distances. This dude is snowflaked by design

Hmm, I hadn't considered bounded accuracy.

The flatness of the math of 5E is a mild pet peeve of mine. Personally, I think there should be bigger difference between a low-level character and a high-level character, but as I've said, I'm a bit of a (3E) grognard. I don't mind the idea of the numbers being less dramatic than in previous editions, but I'd like to increase the range of the Proficiency Bonuses for the classes, a little. Maybe maxing out at +8 to +10 instead of +6 to stretch the power of higher-level PCs.

Of course, this could/would lead to having to rework the monsters at higher levels to make them suitable challenges for those PCs, but I'm not at that point yet. It's still all on the drawing board.

 

[Coroc]

Hmm, I hadn't considered bounded accuracy.

The flatness of the math of 5E is a mild pet peeve of mine. Personally, I think there should be bigger difference between a low-level character and a high-level character, but as I've said, I'm a bit of a (3E) grognard. I don't mind the idea of the numbers being less dramatic than in previous editions, but I'd like to increase the range of the Proficiency Bonuses for the classes, a little. Maybe maxing out at +8 to +10 instead of +6 to stretch the power of higher-level PCs.

Of course, this could/would lead to having to rework the monsters at higher levels to make them suitable challenges for those PCs, but I'm not at that point yet. It's still all on the drawing board.

Well basically you can boost select stats and connected metastats via attribute increase, feats, items etc., like in any edition, so you might get your +8 or +10 anyway or even more if you focus the build on it.

But as we found out in another thread there are some very important metastats in 5e. The little math exercise in that thread proved AC being one and i think standard saves are sure another. Your con determines your health also, and it might cause you to get exhaustion more easy which is very unsettling, at least when i am aplayer i really hate it.

 

[Knightfall]

Here's a quick breakdown of what I would do. These options are based primarily on v.3.5.

Default Low Ability Scores [PHB]
Common Races
Dwarf

• Hill Dwarf: Charisma
• Mountain Dwarf: EITHER Charisma (and a -1 to stat) OR two lowest stats go into Charisma and Dexterity, respectively

Elf

• High Elf: Constitution
• Wood Elf: Charisma
• Drow: Constitution or Wisdom (player's choice)

Halfling

• Lightfoot: Strength
• Stout: Strength or Charisma (player's choice)

Human: Either n/a; or roll 1d6

Uncommon Races
Dragonborn: Dexterity or Intelligence (?) *
Gnome

• Forest Gnome: EITHER Strength (and a -1 to stat) OR two lowest stats go into Strength and Charisma, respectively
• Rock Gnome: Strength

Half-Elf: roll 1d6 (re-roll 6?)
Half-Orc: Intelligence or Charisma (player's choice)
Tiefling: Dexterity or Wisdom (?) *

* These two races might need some tweaking for my games.

 

[Umbran]

What about the idea of specifying for each race a Default Low Ability Score?

I think this is much more harsh than, say, having a -1 or -2 on the same ability score for the race. At least that leaves the player a choice for how to handle it. This is dictating a dump stat for the entire race, no choice. In terms of player acceptance, that's probably not going to go over well.

 

[Knightfall]

I think this is much more harsh than, say, having a -1 or -2 on the same ability score for the race. At least that leaves the player a choice for how to handle it. This is dictating a dump stat for the entire race, no choice. In terms of player acceptance, that's probably not going to go over well.

Having a -1 or -2 on the score is what I would prefer to do, but the more I got into the idea, the more I felt that players wouldn't accept it. I can see why some would call it dictating a dump stat and balk at the idea completely. If I could find a happy mean/median between the two, that would be ideal. In truth, there isn't a quick fix for what I want, but I want to explore the option.

 

[Blue]

On one side, this will prevent things like Half-Orc wizards (assuming their low is INT), but considering the average low in a rolled situation this will basically always be a penalty score.

On the other hand, you put a race with a penalty to CON and it will plummet in popularity. Put one with a penalty in DEX and you'll only see heavy armor wearers of that race, either casters or STR weapon wielders.

Worse, it affects other concepts. I want to play the blunt halfling. Oh sorry, your CHR has to be higher than your STR, because your STR will take your lowest score. Regardless if you want to play a low CHR character.

With 4d6 drop the lowest, it is exceeding unlikely statistically that it would be a 13,so it will stop multiclassing into anything with it. Say a dwarf subrace has a DLAB of DEX - that means that that basically that entire race can't multiclass into rogues.

I think it prevents some unusual characters, where the ability scores and the classes don't line up, by giving every member of that (sub)race to have a low and likely penalty score in the same place.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The flatness of the math of 5E is a mild pet peeve of mine. Personally, I think there should be bigger difference between a low-level character and a high-level character, but as I've said, I'm a bit of a (3E) grognard. I don't mind the idea of the numbers being less dramatic than in previous editions, but I'd like to increase the range of the Proficiency Bonuses for the classes, a little. Maybe maxing out at +8 to +10 instead of +6 to stretch the power of higher-level PCs.

Of course, this could/would lead to having to rework the monsters at higher levels to make them suitable challenges for those PCs, but I'm not at that point yet. It's still all on the drawing board.

FWIW, we use a proficiency bonus of +2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,5,6,6,6,7,7,7,8,8,8 and love it. Works great IMO for making that difference a bit more between levels. We also limit ability scores at 19, but have a homebrew feat called Raising the Bar which allows a character to have a 20 in one score.

Our DM compensates by simply adding +1 more for some CRs, +2 for higher ones, and I think he might go as +3, but I would have to ask him to know for certain.

I kind of like your idea in the OP, but would rather simply have either a penalty to scores like in AD&D for races and most likely a lower max score. I am one of those old school players who feel halflings and gnomes should not have STR 18 or higher!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That seems even worse than having a -2 to con while wanting to play an elf frontliner. I can make an elf with a decent con if I roll well that way, your way I simply cannot ever do so unless I roll exceptionally well overall (no low scores at all).

The point of ditching the - is to reduce pidgeonholing. I'd not be okay with making that very thing even worse.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Of course, this could/would lead to having to rework the monsters at higher levels to make them suitable challenges for those PCs, but I'm not at that point yet. It's still all on the drawing board.

I talked to my DM tonight and what he does for creatures is pretty simple to use if you adopt our +8 max proficiency progression:

CR 0 - 4, no adjustment
CR 5 - 14 = +1
CR 15 - 24 = +2
CR 25+ = +3

The modifier is applied to all the listed in the stat block saving throws and skills, as well as attack rolls.

For example, a drow elite warrior is CR 5 so gains a +1 to DEX, CON, and WIS saves over the value listed in the stat block. It would also gain +1 more to Perception and Stealth (again, those listed in the block). And finally all of the attack rolls under that actions section (i.e. shortsword and hand crossbow).

 

[Yaarel]

I no longer use racial ability score boosts. Instead I have racial ability minimums.

For example, for a High Elf, the Dexterity must be 12 or higher and the Intelligence 11 or higher. On average, these High Elf abilities are higher than Human, and never below average.

I am happy with how this is working out, both for flavor and mechanics. It also allows the High Elf to be just as good as any other race in any class. A High Elf Paladin with very high Strength and Charisma? Great!



I wouldnt worry about weak abilities, but if you want, the opposite might possible. Say, the maximum score for a High Elf at level 1, might be 16 Constitution. Then allow the player to improve Constitution normally, upto 20, while leveling.