D&D 5E A simple questions for Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Min-Maxers.


log in or register to remove this ad


Personally I agree completely. I think races in particular should be much more unbalanced. IMO, gnomes, halflings, kolbolds (and maybe elves and dwarves), etc. should not be able to get a strength of 20. Then take this line of thinking to all of the races and just see what ya get.

What you'll get is a game where everyone builds the same dwarf paladin because they're the only real option.

What you'll get is a game with unbalanced play because it has unbalanced rules.

What you'll get is a game that is boring and repetitive.

Stats should be removed completely for races. Races themselves should have theie interesting racial qualities representated by interesting features that are both thematic and functional. If your most defining element of a race is that it is "strong", you have a very poorly defined race.
 

What you'll get is a game where everyone builds the same dwarf paladin because they're the only real option.

What you'll get is a game with unbalanced play because it has unbalanced rules.

What you'll get is a game that is boring and repetitive.
A game where every paladin ends up with 20 Strength is more boring and repetitive than a game where only the dwarf paladins end up with 20 Strength and only the halfling paladins end up with 20 Charisma. It would require them to solve the problem of each class having exactly one most-important stat, though, but they've gotten pretty close to having two co-equal stats for a couple of classes.

And if every paladin was either a dwarf or halfling, then that still wouldn't make the game unbalanced. It would make elf paladins unbalanced against dwarf paladins, but then elf paladins just wouldn't be played, and the game would be balanced among the options that actually see use.
 


What you'll get is a game where everyone builds the same dwarf paladin because they're the only real option.
Assuming, of course, that everyone (anyone?) wants to play a Paladin, or is willing to accept one (or more) in the party.

Also, "only real option" for what?

What you'll get is a game with unbalanced play because it has unbalanced rules.
Maybe, maybe not, depending how hard the players try to break things.

Stats should be removed completely for races. Races themselves should have theie interesting racial qualities representated by interesting features that are both thematic and functional. If your most defining element of a race is that it is "strong", you have a very poorly defined race.
OK, but will that fly with the crowd who want everything about their character to have some reflection in the game mechanics? I rather doubt it...

Personally, I don't mind a character's race having an impact on its stats; though I prefer if the impact skews the bell curve rather than being a flat + or -. For example, instead of saying a Dwarf gets a flat +2 on strength just have the Dwarf's strength range be from 7-19 instead of 3-18, and adjust accordingly. Dwarves might also have a charisma range of 3-16 instead of 3-18, and so on. To do this for each stat for each race can be a bit tedious, but the good news is you only have to do it once. And humans, as the standard-setters, are always 3-18 on everything - with no adjustment for gender, to keep it simple.

Lan-"we've already done this long ago; I can point you to our adjustment tables (they're online) on request"-efan
 


The options that actually see use? How are those determined?
Empirically, after the fact. Publish a ruleset where dwarves and halflings make for significantly better paladins than elves and gnomes do, and then let people play with it. You should end up seeing a lot more dwarf paladins and halfling paladins than elf paladins or gnome paladins.
 


I disagree, but let me clarify.

What you'll get is a game where everyone builds the same dwarf paladin because they're the only real option.

What you'll get is a game with unbalanced play because it has unbalanced rules.

I doubt it would be the dwarf since their max strength would only be 16 ;) Likely in such an approach power gamers and optimizers would flock to one or two "superior" races. But such a system would not, generally, be for that type of play(er). Ideally the races are dynamically balanced, such that all the racial features combined make the races roughly equal - not just the stats. As an example, in my current campaign I allowed my players to pick any intelligent creature from the Monster manual to be their race (currently we have 2 elves, a halfling, a lizard folk, a dragon born, and a yaun-ti) and we don't have an issues. In the past I have had players play giants (back when they were large and not huge), unicorns, and dragons. Just because something can be optimized doesn't mean it has to be optimized.

What you'll get is a game that is boring and repetitive.
I don't know why you have jumped to that conclusion since we have hardly discussed a frame work.

Stats should be removed completely for races. Races themselves should have theie interesting racial qualities representated by interesting features that are both thematic and functional. If your most defining element of a race is that it is "strong", you have a very poorly defined race.

I partially agree with this, but I think stats should be a part of it. I think races should have interesting and thematic features & traits, and I think these can be part of the balancing act with unequal stats. I never said to limit the design to different stats.
 

Remove ads

Top