6-5 Rule of Three

[BobTheNob]

I think the limiter would be the DM. There are tasks where others "helping" just isn't any help. You can spend all the actions you want, but you can't make me type any faster. On the other hand if you're half-way competent at English you could help my writing by being a proof-reader or copy-editor.

- Marty Lund

I appreciate this point. Certainly the DM always has a certain power to say no.

But lets take the english writing example. If we assume that no level of expertise is required to allow people to help, then under this premise anyone could help. So as long as "someone" is there, you have advantage. The reality of D&D is it is (primarily) a group activity, so invariably, someone who can aid you will be there.

So the "write an english document" example becomes a case of you are (in a game sense) always at advantage. When you have advantage 95% of the time, advantage isn't special, it doesn't have to be worked for, and its not gratifying when its achieved.

Also, under this assumption, as a DM, to say no, I would have to find reasons why not. I never like doing this. One of my MO's when DM'ing is "Find reasons to yes, not reasons to say no" (to me that is a very important one)...under a mechanic when the answer is always yes, you have nothing left but to find reasons for no. Leaves a funny taste in my mouth.

 

[Obryn]

There's some other stuff that demihumans apparently get that help balance the Human attribute advantage.

(1) The Hill Dwarf gets a larger hit die (d12 for a Fighter) and more damage with an axe.

(2) The Mountain Dwarf seems to get a +1 to AC and more damage with hammers. And probably some weapon/armor proficiencies.

(3) Halflings get Lucky at the minimum. Which is pretty awesome. And more damage with daggers/slings.

(4) Guessing Elves get more damage with bows/swords. They also may get more spells - not sure if the Wizard having 3 spells (vs 2 for the clerics) and a ton of cantrips involves a High Elf feature yet.

I'm withholding my judgment.

-O

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Am I the only one to sit up and notice what with humans getting a blanket +1 to all scores, and another +1 to one of choice, and then presumably another +1 from class!

I do not like the superhuman ability score bonuses at all. Other races' bonuses aren't even an advantage in that case, they're just the one area in which they almost compete with ordinary humans... bleh. Just give humans a +1 to any single ability score they choose. That is powerful enough!

I like the idea that non-humans get +2 to two scores and humans get +1 to six scores and some sort of preference in level-based ability boosts.

So yeah, each race is a little bit better at some classes and a little bit worse at others.

What are the humans best at?

Multiclassing.

Not only do they have the broad-based stats to back it up, but they should get a racial feature that actually makes multiclassing easier-- a la HARP-- and something that makes them a little bit better at any class, like the extra at-will power in 4e.

Humans get +1 to everything, subraces are in, subraces determine ability score bonus, no ability malus- not cool at all, I get a massive case of the do-not-wants. If this stays, I hope there's a module completely rewriting how races are build.

Yes, do not want. Instead of having sub-races like AD&D and 3.X I would rather have customizable races like Pathfinder's Advanced Player's Guide and upcoming Advanced Race Guide with a dash of 4e's flexible racial bonuses.

Hmm. I think it's time for me to go back to my Pathfinder Lab.

If humans got +1 to all ability scores, but other races got +2 to one, I'd be cooler with that. It represents the human versatility that has been part of the game for ages while keeping the idea that some races are naturally smarter or stronger than humans. As it currently sits, though, humans have the best ability score generation across the board.

+1 is not always helpful unless you are doing min-max point buy generation. Random roll it is likely a 50-50 benefit.

If you've got a system where all abilities improve, like 4e, +1 is a meaningful bonus over the career of the character-- it's only a 50/50 chance at any given level. Ignoring things like feat prerequisites and the auto-success DC threshold.

I really like the idea of making human a race that is "top tier" for every class. 4e generated far too much "cantina effect" because the two-primary-stat system made humans a second best choice for most classes.

Wasn't really possible in 4e because multiclassing didn't exist... but I'd really like Humans to be superior multiclassers.

 

[mlund]

I appreciate this point. Certainly the DM always has a certain power to say no.

But lets take the english writing example. If we assume that no level of expertise is required to allow people to help, then under this premise anyone could help.

The degree to which someone who is unskilled, moderately skilled, or professionally skilled can help in a task is completely situational. Someone bringing you food and coffee while you try to finish a paper overnight is helping even if they aren't literate. They aren't as helpful as a seasoned copy editor with a background in the subject matter.

On the other hand, someone who is an expert can be a giant micro-managing pain in the behind that only makes a task harder - like a back-seat lock-picker.

A player really has to come up with some answer for "how" they help with a task, and then the DM has to adjudicate the appropriate bonus (or penalty) based on the methodology.

Trogdor the Illiterate is not going to help as a proof-reader. Any common person who uses his letters in his career can probably spell-check and proof-read a document. A veteran court scribe who works for the intended audience is going to be super-helpful (possibly to the point of making the check negligible).

Also, under this assumption, as a DM, to say no, I would have to find reasons why not. I never like doing this.

That's why you push it back on the Players by asking them, "how?"

If they give you a plausible explanation give them their cookie and move on - after carefully taking note of whatever details in their explanation could prove useful to harken back to later (IE, "my mother was a scribe," "I once dated a barrister back in Wizard College," etc.)

- Marty Lund

P.S. - I totally want a player to over-use the "I dated a [profession title here] back in Wizard School," explanation in a game - just so I can start drawing NPCs from a pool of exes whenever it would be suitably dramatic and/or frightfully awkward. Bonus points if the PC's cavalier attitude towards NPCs implies a long line of disgruntled lovers. "I have a lady in every port. That's why I stay at sea, friend." Good times!

 

[Gold Roger]

On the other hand, someone who is an expert can be a giant micro-managing pain in the behind that only makes a task harder - like a back-seat lock-picker.

Hehe, now I totally want to put an old dwarf into my next campaign who follows the rogue around for one adventure constantly giving out disadvantage: "Nonono you son of an owlbear, that is not a kobold egscrambler, it's an ogre-piker. Geesh"..."I told you, should've used a type 5 lockpick and the turathian handshake on the lock."

P.S. - I totally want a player to over-use the "I dated a [profession title here] back in Wizard School," explanation in a game - just so I can start drawing NPCs from a pool of exes whenever it would be suitably dramatic and/or frightfully awkward. Bonus points if the PC's cavalier attitude towards NPCs implies a long line of disgruntled lovers. "I have a lady in every port. That's why I stay at sea, friend." Good times!

This totally needs to be a background.

 

[jadrax]

But lets take the english writing example. If we assume that no level of expertise is required to allow people to help, then under this premise anyone could help.

Read, How to Play, p.10. 'Help'.

But to sum it up, the GM sets an attribute floor and possibly even requires you to be trained in the skill.

 

[Mercule]

I LOVE the bad reaction to the Human bonuses here and like every other forum.

Does anyone like it?

Not me. As I said, elsewhere, I'm pretty sure what my "fix" will be. All races are at -1 penalty to all ability scores, then apply the listed modifiers. I'll probably even just draw up a chart to make it easy on the players. I did a lot of those for 1e.

Ironically (maybe), one of the things I loved about 1e was drawing up little rules and charts to tweak a number of "flavor" rules. For example, I had a fairly large chart that redid the racial max levels by class, including all the "NPC" classes from Dragon and various supplements that we used. I'm pretty sure I also had a chart of all the racial ability modifiers, too.

 

[Li Shenron]

The ability score bonuses idea is really lame IMHO.

They just talked about keeping numbers down, and then this... it doesn't make any sense. All that matters really, is the difference between races. I think the 3ed idea of +2/-2 is still the best, except maybe when the penalty goes to a mental stat. If they want to remove penalties because of too many sensitive players, it would be enough to keep the +2 (or +1 to keep numbers down) and let humans pick where to land it, but the additional +1 to all is really pointless.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Ability Scores, do characters (Fighter/Slayer) have Str mod + 1/2 Str mod to melee attacks?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

If they want to remove penalties because of too many sensitive players, it would be enough to keep the +2 (or +1 to keep numbers down) and let humans pick where to land it, but the additional +1 to all is really pointless.

Not really a matter of sensitive players, they way I see it. I just think the math just works better on an 'all bonuses all the time' model. It's not like the penalties actually hurt, because people just play classes that don't need that ability score, or if it's a penalty to something everyone needs, like Constitution, people just don't play it.