D&D 5E Racial Min/Maxes on Ability Scores?

[DND_Reborn]

I redesigned the gauntlets to give +2 strength capped at 20 but the wearer is treated as a large creature for the purposes of carrying and opposed checks. This keeps a lid in it, and gives high strength characters some useful benefits to shoves etc.

Can do the same with giant strength but +4 and huge. Gives a nice combo for Tavern brawlers who can throw huge items with proficiency.

I agree. I'll suggest this at our table. I don't mind the item making the score 19, but when you fighters already have 18 and 19 STR, your sorcerer or something ends up with it. The guantlets could also give other things, like your unarmed strikes are d6 and 3 times per day you can gain advantage on STR checks or something? It is like a lot of magic items in 5E (yawn), they could have done so much more with them that would make them interesting...

 

[DND_Reborn]

Heck, if it weren't for saving throws you could just dump ability scores entirely and increase proficiency mods to compensate. Re-work a double handful of class features and you're good to go.

A fair number of people have been suggesting such things lately. I doubt we'll ever see it for D&D, but the way things are going you never know.

 

[jmartkdr2]

A fair number of people have been suggesting such things lately. I doubt we'll ever see it for D&D, but the way things are going you never know.

Any sacred cow they didn't kill for 4e is here to stay...

You could also halfway do this by reducing the impact of ability scores by making the mods smaller relative to score (ie +1 at 13, +2 at 16, +3 at 19, etc) and adding a couple points to proficiency.

If you include 16 as a point buy option I think you'd get the benefit of floating mods without needing to remove racial ASIs entirely.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You could also halfway do this by reducing the impact of ability scores by making the mods smaller relative to score (ie +1 at 13, +2 at 16, +3 at 19, etc) and adding a couple points to proficiency.

If you include 16 as a point buy option I think you'd get the benefit of floating mods without needing to remove racial ASIs entirely.

LOL great ideas! (FYI already done in our house-rules. )

Seriously though, this is why our table:

• bumped proficiency to +8 max
• changed expertise to +2, +3 at level 7, and +4 at level 14 (we are probably going to go back to just granting advantage though)made the odd's the bumps for + modifiers (9-12 is +0, 13-14 is +1, 15-16 is +2, 17-18 is +3, 19 - 20 is +4; then it reverts to normal)
• removed racial ASIs
• cap scores at 18 max. if a the main race (not subrace) normally has +2 ASI, their cap is 20.

This way proficiency counts for more (which we want) than ability scores. The normal max is still +11 (+8 and +3) with cap 18's, so just as RAW. Expertise gets a little nerfed (max +15 normally instead of +17), but it hasn't hurt it at all.

 

[jmartkdr2]

LOL great ideas! (FYI already done in our house-rules. )

Seriously though, this is why our table:

• bumped proficiency to +8 max
• changed expertise to +2, +3 at level 7, and +4 at level 14 (we are probably going to go back to just granting advantage though)made the odd's the bumps for + modifiers (9-12 is +0, 13-14 is +1, 15-16 is +2, 17-18 is +3, 19 - 20 is +4; then it reverts to normal)
• removed racial ASIs
• cap scores at 18 max. if a the main race (not subrace) normally has +2 ASI, their cap is 20.

This way proficiency counts for more (which we want) than ability scores. The normal max is still +11 (+8 and +3) with cap 18's, so just as RAW. Expertise gets a little nerfed (max +15 normally instead of +17), but it hasn't hurt it at all.

That's pretty good.

My main reasons for favoring floating mods as a fix for 5e is: it requires the least amount of houseruling (in that I don't need to change any other aspect of the game) and that it removes ASI's as a reason to pick a race, which in my experience opens up more characters to play.

I don't mind removing 'elves are very slightly more dexterous than humans,' etc., since it never impacted anything anyways.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That's pretty good.

My main reasons for favoring floating mods as a fix for 5e is: it requires the least amount of houseruling (in that I don't need to change any other aspect of the game) and that it removes ASI's as a reason to pick a race, which in my experience opens up more characters to play.

I don't mind removing 'elves are very slightly more dexterous than humans,' etc., since it never impacted anything anyways.

Thanks. They aren't HUGE changes, but it makes the game work better for us.

We did floating ASIs for a while, and it works fine IMO. But I also think PCs get enough edge and simply don't really need another +2 and +1 someplace.

A new idea I've been toying around with is that ability scores and proficiency bonus don't stack. Once your proficiency bonus exceeds your ability score, you stop using it. Then I could keep ability scores mostly RAW, but change proficiency progression to max at +11 or 12 even. But this requires more fiddling around with monster stat blocks, so I am loathe to do it...

 

[TwoSix]

A new idea I've been toying around with is that ability scores and proficiency bonus don't stack. Once your proficiency bonus exceeds your ability score, you stop using it. Then I could keep ability scores mostly RAW, but change proficiency progression to max at +11 or 12 even. But this requires more fiddling around with monster stat blocks, so I am loathe to do it...

I mean, it does if you feel it necessary that monsters and PCs use the same system; but I'm sure you're aware that the game won't break if you don't change the monsters. All that rule change does is slightly adjust the curve of bonuses the PCs gain.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Heck, if it weren't for saving throws you could just dump ability scores entirely and increase proficiency mods to compensate. Re-work a double handful of class features and you're good to go.

My only issue with that is that it removes the part of the system where you have different numbers for different things.

Maybe a “Primary, Secondary, Tertiary” Conpetence, and guidelines for which to apply to what thing, but yeah it think you need differing math for difference game numbers.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I mean, it does if you feel it necessary that monsters and PCs use the same system; but I'm sure you're aware that the game won't break if you don't change the monsters. All that rule change does is slightly adjust the curve of bonuses the PCs gain.

No, of course you can. I just like the rules to apply across the board, but 5E threw that out the window...

Finally, the biggest issue for me when it comes to rule changes are:

1. Do they make the game more enjoyable (for whatever reason)?
2. Are they relatively easy to implement?
3. Do they make an appreciable difference?

Unless the answer to all three is "YES", I generally favor throwing the change out the window as well. I've had hundreds of tweaks I thought about but they failed at some point in one of those three questions.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Maybe a “Primary, Secondary, Tertiary” Conpetence, and guidelines for which to apply to what thing, but yeah it think you need differing math for difference game numbers.

This reminds me of the good, average, and poor modifiers from other d20 games. I think SW used something along those lines for proficiency bonuses IIRC.