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

[Micah Sweet]

What do you say to the idea that proficiency bonus can supplant ability score modifiers?

A couple people have voiced the idea, myself included, that you can boost proficiency progression to +11, only using your ability score modifiers when they are better than your proficiency bonus.

I can see that. I assume you would have to use your ability modifiers for untrained skill rolls?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is what I'm saying. Why not both!

Presumably because it would make the characters too powerful. But in theory I like the idea.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I can see that. I assume you would have to use your ability modifiers for untrained skill rolls?

Correct. Honestly, with this kind of a change, I probably would be fine with keeping ability scores capped higher, since they won't add.

EDIT: Never mind. I can't find a way for this to work....

 

[Haldrik]

But the system wouldn't be universal. Part of the appeal (for many at least) with d20 design is the same system works for ability checks, attack rolls, and saves. Your suggestion would require the bonuses vary between attacks/saves and ability checks.

Unless I am missing something or misunderstanding you?

There is no Wisdom to Perception unless "proficient".

It is universal.

 

[DND_Reborn]

There is no Wisdom to Perception unless "proficient".

It is universal.

Ok, this was your idea:

As an aside.

An intriguing way to keep math small is:

"proficiency" = add the ability bonus (one doesnt add the ability unless one has proficiency!)
"expertise" = the bonus from advancing to higher levels (formerly the proficiency bonus)

So, using RAW, WIS 16 is +3

I am not proficient: no bonus
I am proficient: +3 for WIS only
I have expertise: +3 (WIS) plus proficiency bonus (so +2 to +6)

Attacks and proficient saves are basically always "expertise" and add the proficiency bonus. This is what is no longer "universal" when I say that. Proficiency would mean one thing for skills, and yet another thing for attacks and proficient saves. I suppose this would it imply non-proficient saves would still add ability modifiers, even though non-proficient ability checks won't add anything.

For skills, proficiency means one thing; for attacks/saves it would mean "expertise", i.e. something else. Those aren't the same, thus not "universal". In 5E as is, they all mean the same thing. That's just something I've been trying to avoid doing.

Also, since so few classes get expertise in skills, only rogues and bards will add proficiency bonus to skills unless you take Prodigy or have a class feature which "doubles your proficiency bonus", which (since this is really "expertise") I assume would allow adding the normal proficiency bonus. It means more PCs will fail at skill checks, and you either need to accept that reality or adjust skill checks--even more work.

 

[Shiroiken]

Races (as in fantasy "races") should be differentiated from humans, including minimum and maximum scores and bonuses (and subtractions) to the default scores.

Here's where you and I differ from a lot of others; to us the fantasy races of D&D are completely alien. They are not "funny looking humans," but creatures of completely different physiology and psychology. The question should be how to implement those changes mechanically, not ignoring them for diversity's sake.

The two ways to do it are by ability scores and by racial abilities (or a combination of both). It's quite possible for every elf to not be clumsy (min 8 Dex), or for no halfling to be as strong as a human (max Str 16). Aarokocra fly because they naturally have wings, just like dwarves are biologically resistant to poison (plus magic and disease in older editions). I'll admit I don't like "cultural" racial abilities (weapon training is the most obvious of these) because they may not fit individual characters, such as an elf raised among humans as an infant.

 

[dave2008]

Sure, that could probably work well but if you adopt the 16 + 2 (racial) bumps cap to 18, you could have a 17 still.

Would you even want the ASIs for race to be there, or just have them bump the caps? @dave2008 , what are your thoughts?

I'm inclined to remove the ASIs from race, but have the +2 ASIs bump caps to 18. So, whether you did standard array or point-buy, the max would be 15 (with a cap potentially of 18).

I'm not decided on this.

I definitely want the racial bonus to bump caps, that is more important to me than +2 starting. Not sure if I want to keep +2 starting or not. I will need to think about it.

 

[dave2008]

How badly would it break the game that if you just let people to have both instead of having to choose?

Personally we play without ASI, just feats and I think the game works better because:

1. People have more interesting abilities
2. There is less number inflation which makes the monsters more challenging

 

[Lanefan]

Which brings up another issue. Personally, I am not keen on using different systems for different things--I'd like to try to keep the concepts "universal". Admittedly, it has been one of the things holding me up on making concrete changes. It's not easy.

Yep, trying to shoehorn everything into one system is the road to madness.

Systems are like tools: you need the right one for the job at hand, even if it's not the same one you used for the last job. So if saves use one system and skills use another and turn-undead uses a third, so what; as long as each system is the best at what it's trying to do.

Using different systems for different things also makes tweaking things immensely easier in the future, as whatever change you make only applies to that isolated system rather than the whole game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Personally we play without ASI, just feats and I think the game works better because:

1. People have more interesting abilities
2. There is less number inflation which makes the monsters more challenging

That is of course one way to do it and I'm glad to hear that the lack of big numbers is not a problem.

I was considering granting both feat and ASI, but with a caveat that you could not get +2 to an ability, only two +1s (and no stacking of potential bonus from a feat with these either.) Then we would see more broadly competent characters but numbers would not increase so rapidly, and there wouldn't be pressure to prioritise even stats as ASIs would make stats you bump alter between even and uneven.