D&D 5E I think I prefer backgrounds in 2014

[QuentinGeorge]

The answer would of course be to make all of the six abilities scores relevant to your character, no matter their class, but D&D is rather reluctant to do this. It would solve the "dump stat" issue and the plethora of weak and stupid 5E characters.

(Another option would be to build in both an advantage and disadvantage to high scores in a particular attribute, like CoC does with "Size")

 

[Horwath]

The answer would of course be to make all of the six abilities scores relevant to your character, no matter their class, but D&D is rather reluctant to do this. It would solve the "dump stat" issue and the plethora of weak and stupid 5E characters.

(Another option would be to build in both an advantage and disadvantage to high scores in a particular attribute, like CoC does with "Size")

Pillars of eternity did that, but dexterity adding attack speed works bad in turn based system(unless we turn the turn into action points system and dex gives more action points to do in a single turn)

And bonus area effect can be problematic to do on a grid. Or spells need to have very generalized area of effects so bonuses could work more fairly on various amount of base AoE of the spell.


1. Might:
Increases all damage/healing
armor limit
fort saves

2. Dexterity:
Increases action points per round(how much base, and how much for dexterity, it's for a long debate)
reflex saves

3. Constitution:
increases HPs
fort saves

4. Intelligence:
increases duration and AoE of abilities
will saves

5. Perception
all attack bonuses
reflex saves

6. Resolve
AC bonus
will saves

 

[Horwath]

definitely, i want my species to feel distinct, i want them to have some set of traits that actually gives them a distinct feeling and playstyle that only they have, but Wizards is so afraid of making a species that's 'better' at any given role that all the current species end up as these nothingburger collections of low-impact and ribbon traits.

I agree, but there is a fine line between being better at something and giving out image that this is the only combo that is valuable and you are punishing yourself by not getting this specific class-species combo.

traits can be different and still have broad usage.

I.E:
elves
Fey step: As a Bonus action, teleport 30ft,
usage: prof bonus Long rest day, +1 usage per Short rest,

darkvision 40ft

proficiency+Expertise in Perception

+1 cantrip(use int, wis or cha for casting this cantrip)
might be wizard only cantrip or any or wizard/druid/cleric cantrip

elven trance(4hr meditation instead of 8hr Long rest, no Perception penalty while resting)

Longbow proficiency, or if you start with martial weapons, pick a tool or a language instead.


now, this set of abilities work with almost every build.


Humans:
+1 origin feat.
+1 skill
+1 expertise
+4 tools, weapons or languages

now humans are bland and boring(from personal experience) and abilities describe that.
But, this sets of abilities give versatility and you can use that in any build.


Orcs:
brutal critical: when you score a critical hit with any attack, deal +1d12 damage in addition to normal critical damage

darkvision 80ft

adrenaline rush and relentless endurance as in 2024 PHB


Dwarves:

+1 HP per level

max healing from using HDs

additional d4 HDs equal to proficiency bonus

stone's endurance:
prof bonus per Long rest, +1 usage on Short rest, you can take Dodge action as a Bonus action and spend one of your HDs

darkvision 80ft

posion resistance and advantage on saves vs poisons.

axe and hammer training:
you gain proficiency in one martial axe or hammer type weapon or you gain one tool or language.



all these abilities are very general, but they do have a play style that they support over other.

now we can discuss the power level of those features and how they could be tweaked, but almost all concepts can be supported by these 4 core species of D&D.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They do make it an optimization problem, though. Mountain dwarves were WAY overrepresented in 2014 5e simply because that extra +1 ASI at level 1 made them slightly better for strength-based classes, for example.

But they also got the medium armour proficiency that was useless fo such classes but quite useful for many non-strength based classes. It was actually one of the best designed species as it offered something to most builds and also made some of them feel different. Like a dwarf wizard in a sturdy armour is different than the usual flimsy cloth wearers.

When it comes to ability scores, trade-offs basically tell players, "if you want to play this class, then you should pick X,Y, or Z species." And then we wind up with a bunch of same old, same old. With your example above, you're basically telling players, "if you want to play a goliath monk, ranger, or rogue, you're going to start at a disadvantage." Because gamers will tend towards optimization, you will see much fewer goliaths in those classes.

But the issue is because how the classes are designed. They're too dependent on a single ability score. Though like I said, with the biggest verisimilitude breaker, the strength, the issue mostly does not exist. You can build a very effective dex-based combatants so small species having limited strength would not be a meaningful balance issue.

Ideally species choice should not shut anyone out from specific classes, but this doesn't mean they must be able to do every build with equal efficiency. To me it is a feature, not a bug, if goliaths fight using their size and strength to pummel people around, whilst nimble halflings slink between enemy legs and slice their ankles. Different species should play differently.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Pointing this out is not a rebuttal, nor does it make the complaints raised invalid.

Fine. Then let me make it even more clear if people aren't able to infer it:

None of the game mechanics are connected to the fiction. Therefore while a person might want a specific part of the mechanics to match the fiction... the designers of the game are not going to give it to them (because they don't concern themselves with any of it.) So they are expecting something they aren't going to get and are thus wasting their time (and by extension our time for having to read/skim their posts filled with complaints that will never been solved.) And I have no problem pointing that out.

If I have to read a post complaining of an unsolvable issue that they in fact should already know is an unsolvable issue, then that person has to read my post where I point out that indeed it is an unsolvable issue and that they are wasting their time.

Here on EN World one is free to complain, and others are free to complain about the complaints.