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

[dave2008]

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.

I'm used to playing were numbers don't really increase at all. So, restricting ability score progression to +1 feats is just fine by me. So, IMO, we achieve the same goal: more broadly competent characters (and I think more interesting), with numbers that don't increase so rapidly, with the added bonus of lower overall numbers.

EDIT: I am really excited to try this with 16 max ability score (18 with racial bonus) for our next campaign.

 

[DND_Reborn]

EDIT: I am really excited to try this with 16 max ability score (18 with racial bonus) for our next campaign.

You and me, both, brother!

 

[Loyal Ranger]

18 max. Roll 3d6 for stats order to taste. It worked for years.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I actually like the Shadowrun "species" selection. I say species because they are not crossable even by magic means so there are no half X variants. They have deferring species minimum, maximum, and default starting for "point by" instead of flat 8s. I like it because the system drives expectations which I enjoy because I like defying those expectations which doesn't work when there are none.

For example, Base stats start with 1 and max out at 6 depicted as 1/6 (kind of like the 10 - 20 in D&D just your only stating the modifiers instead of an abstract to determine modifiers and no stat can be lower than 10 and since it represents a dice pool 10 is 1 instead of 0 and it counts up from there). So I made a Troll that has a 5/10 strength which means it starts at almost the max strength for 1/6 races, it is one of the only races without a 1/6 intelligence with 1/5 so of course I made a Troll hacker because nothing amuses me more than being a light hearted and the most intelligent one in my party when everyone expects me to be rough and tumble brute. I used cyberwar (think Keen mind feat that allows intelligence to break the cap by one modifier), magic adept powers (think prodigy or the UA Practiced Expert for expertise since it basically doubles my "proficiency bonus") , and edge (think luck feat). In the end I had a completely functional hacker Troll which is a constant surprise since even in the shadowrun world that tends to be rare.

I have done this multiple times in D&D based on class instead of race. I a human warlock scout and trap master (devils sight, prodigy feat, alert feat, and gloves of thievery), A Druid of the land crowd control specialist (which I was told was impossible but It worked), I had a Dwarf Forge Cleric tank that could not heal at all but had high HP, 25AC, and could regenerate hit points with the dodge action due to dwarven fortitude. I am currently getting ready for a game with a Hexblade Pact of the Chain Tank who only uses melee for attacks of opportunity instead standing point black and casting toll the dead. Since Hexwarrior gives shield and medium armor so he has AC18 at level 1 not to mention shield spell (he would have AC19 but GM prefers standard array and I choose attack over defense to increase my save DC for toll the dead).

As a result of me enjoying this I find myself at odds with all players trying to remove racial stats from D&D. I like playing a human warlock because it is surprising when my human can see better than rest of the party in the dark with devil's sight the same with shadow sorcerer. I like playing weak dexterous dwarves and strong lumbering elves playing against their racial bonuses as drop stats. If the racial bonus are removed and flattened then the expectations are gone and I simply lose the ability to surprise by playing against them successfully. So even if they do remove "racial" stats in the forgotten realms setting I would like another setting where they lean the opposite way towards a more shadow run design in another setting so I can play in that setting where expectations are drawn that I can defy because when everyone is the same ... no one is interesting.

 

[Haldrik]

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.

I switched terms for the sake of natural English.

But to be clearer for the sake of the math.

• Proficiency = proficiency, increasing normally while advancing thru levels.

• Expertise = apply the ability bonus to the d20 roll.

So, the bonus from advancement while gaining levels is standard and common, and characters usually add it to a d20.

But applying the ability bonus to a d20 is uncommon, and requires a feature to do it.




I suppose, instead of giving a race an extra high ability, they can instead get the feature to add the ability bonus to d20s relating to that ability.



With this kind of math, the numbers stay smaller within "bounded accuracy". But it would take some combing thru the nomenclature to make it work as a variant.



Anyway, like said, it is an intriguing way to look at the math.

The gist is. The bonus from experience happens globally while leveling. But to apply ones aptitude takes specific training and familiarity.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I actually like the Shadowrun "species" selection.

Yeah, I love the priorities system of Shadowrun! I don't know if they are still doing it for an d20 version, but the older versions made you choose your priorities and build off of them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

I go the opposite way, give a +1 with every feat, because it results in more relaxed character building at level 1, and more just choosing what sounds fun or fits the concept, even among those players who have optimization tendencies, like me.

 

[Lanefan]

I actually like the Shadowrun "species" selection. I say species because they are not crossable even by magic means so there are no half X variants. They have deferring species minimum, maximum, and default starting for "point by" instead of flat 8s. I like it because the system drives expectations which I enjoy because I like defying those expectations which doesn't work when there are none.

So let me get this right: in D&D this system would have the pre-point-purchase values vary by creature, so while Humans start at 8-8-8-8-8-8 an Orc might start at 10-6-8-8-10-6 (note those are in the proper order: St, In, Wi, Dx, Co, Ch ) - is that right?

And it'd cost the same number of points to jump the Orc's Charisma up to 10 as it would its Strength up to 14?

If yes, this works for point-buy. But it doesn't work for either of standard array or rolling: as numbers in those systems can be rearranged there still needs to be a flat by-stat bonus-penalty of some sort such that no matter what you put into, say, Charisma for an Orc it's going to take a hit.

 

[ClaytonCross]

So let me get this right: in D&D this system would have the pre-point-purchase values vary by creature, so while Humans start at 8-8-8-8-8-8 an Orc might start at 10-6-8-8-10-6 (note those are in the proper order: St, In, Wi, Dx, Co, Ch ) - is that right?

And it'd cost the same number of points to jump the Orc's Charisma up to 10 as it would its Strength up to 14?

If yes, this works for point-buy. But it doesn't work for either of standard array or rolling: as numbers in those systems can be rearranged there still needs to be a flat by-stat bonus-penalty of some sort such that no matter what you put into, say, Charisma for an Orc it's going to take a hit.

Yes, that is as intended. The Standard array system would have to be reworked entirely. So a large buy for Charisma makes Orc sorcerer, bards, warlock more uncommon and more interesting when they do. As far as them being less than others, point buy allows for a push to max, so yes it cost more and your draining all your points if your buying Charisma but the trade of is thats uncommon so your character is surprising, alternatively the orcs will be a preferred option for fighters and will generally be better at it from level 1 or as good for lest cost which means recourses for other things.

i support that.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, that is as intended. The Standard array system would have to be reworked entirely.

Cool.

What about rolling - how would that work?