6-5 Rule of Three

[Li Shenron]

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.

You've never seen an Elf played in 3ed?

It's only partially true that people avoids class/race combos with a bad penalty. If you have an 18 -2 = 16 in your spellcasting stat, the character is well damn fully playable IMHO. It's those "sensitive players" who insist in considering it useless.

 

[keterys]

Pretty sure the human +1 to ability scores is a reflection of +1 to all skills and +1 to all saves, bonuses folks can easily associate with humans, until they're simplified into +1 to all ability scores.

I wonder if folks would like it more if they didn't get a +1 to all ability scores, but did just get a flat +1 to all d20 rolls. I mean, that's generally speaking a lot more powerful but I wonder if it would trip less outrage by dodging the "Stronger than an Orc" even if they were, perhaps, more lucky/versatile than an orc such that they succeeded at Str tasks about the same amount - the human would just lose an arm wrestling contest (flat str comparison)

 

[KidSnide]

Pretty sure the human +1 to ability scores is a reflection of +1 to all skills and +1 to all saves, bonuses folks can easily associate with humans, until they're simplified into +1 to all ability scores.

Exactly. The genius of the +1 to ability scores is that it is an elegant and simple way to provide a bonus. The problem is that it doesn't reflect how many people think about the in-game reality of ability scores.

For comparison, imagine that - instead of a +1 to ability scores - humans received a +1 bonus to the modifier of all of their odd ability scores. That's almost the same result, but it better reflects the in-game reality.

I love the elegance, but the "in-game reality perception" problem is a legitimate issue.

-KS

 

[dangerous jack]

Pretty sure the human +1 to ability scores is a reflection of +1 to all skills and +1 to all saves, bonuses folks can easily associate with humans, until they're simplified into +1 to all ability scores.

I wonder if folks would like it more if they didn't get a +1 to all ability scores, but did just get a flat +1 to all d20 rolls.

I think you're right in your analysis on the first point.

But I would be just as annoyed if not more so at a +1 to every d20 roll. It would force more addition and be easy to forget (except for stuff that can be precalculated on the character sheet), and still messes with my personal hang-up for human mechanics to be those they would still have if there was only a human race (e.g. if there were only humans in this game, would we give all characters +1 to all d20 rolls?)

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

You've never seen an Elf played in 3ed?

Not once. Plenty of Dwarf and Halfling Wizards, though.

It's only partially true that people avoids class/race combos with a bad penalty. If you have an 18 -2 = 16 in your spellcasting stat, the character is well damn fully playable IMHO. It's those "sensitive players" who insist in considering it useless.

A flat 18 costs entirely too damned much in point buy to get a 16 out of it-- 16 point buy points is almost too much to spend when you're getting a 20 out of it. But maybe I'm the kinda guy the Human racial bonus is for, since I don't do 'dump stats'. I'd rather be great in my prime requisite and good everywhere than amazing in my prime and crap everywhere else.

 

[keterys]

(e.g. if there were only humans in this game, would we give all characters +1 to all d20 rolls?)

If you're arguing that humans should be a baseline at no bonuses whatsoever, then all of the other races are going to lose a lot of shiny toys.

I'll say, I think a lot of people that advocate for "humans = no change" would perhaps be okay with:

Karzak Barbarians: +2 Strength, Resistance to Cold, Advantage with Survival checks
Gant River Folk: +2 Charisma, Swim Speed, Advantage with Bluff

style of races - even if those are just different human tribes in the world. It's all pretty relative.

 

[dangerous jack]

If you're arguing that humans should be a baseline at no bonuses whatsoever, then all of the other races are going to lose a lot of shiny toys.

I'll say, I think a lot of people that advocate for "humans = no change" would perhaps be okay with:

Karzak Barbarians: +2 Strength, Resistance to Cold, Advantage with Survival checks
Gant River Folk: +2 Charisma, Swim Speed, Advantage with Bluff

style of races - even if those are just different human tribes in the world. It's all pretty relative.

I am arguing for baseline, but not no power whatsoever. There are two ways to do it.

1) give humans effective and simple to understand powers. E.g. A reroll of any single roll once / encounter, and/or a 4e action point. These are powerful enough (yet simple enough) that other races could still have bonuses.

2) embrace penalties and drawbacks. E.g. Elves take -1 con, and -1 to str or cha, they can't heal the round after taking necrotic damage, and maybe something else

That said, I'll admit that the human barbarian and river folk races you mention work for me... but in a game that also had non-humans I'd still want the demi-humans to be even more distinct.

 

[keterys]

I do agree that non-humans should be distinct from humans. I just don't think we can safely start from a position of "Humans get almost nothing" without screwing the ability to give lots of stuff to non-humans*

* Unless they throw balance out the window - but there's no _real_ reason to do so.

 

[Li Shenron]

Not once. Plenty of Dwarf and Halfling Wizards, though.

IMXP, Elf has been the second-most popular race besides Human also in 3ed.

It is true however that everyone (at least as far as I remember) I've seen playing a 3ed Elf did offset the Constitution penalty by putting some high enough stat there. I don't even remember if I have ever seen someone playing a PC with a net Constitution penalty...

 

[Baron Von Mandrick]

I guess as of now I'm in the minority because I don't really have a problem with the humans having +1 to all stats and +1 to any stat of choice.

Even in AD&D humans were well rounded in that they could be unlimited level no matter which class they chose. So to me it's a way of continuing the well rounded or adaptable theme. Plus one more to the stat that they spent their time training in, and practicing.

For a final judgement I'd have to see how it balanced out with all the other classes in the final rules.

I'd also have to be sure they didn't also have other abilities like extra feats, or skills etc. I think with something that powerful, it would have to an either/or situation.

I no most people seem to disagree, and I respect those differing opinions, but as of now I'm not convinced that it's a bad idea. At the same time I'm not frozen in place of my support for it either. It's not something that there is no way I'll change my mind on. So I enjoy reading other peoples rationales and keeping an open mind.