Ability Modifiers and "Monster" Races

[Greenfaun]

So I still don't have the rules (not even the pirated ones) but in the newly-available info on the MM races, it turns out that every one of them has exactly two stat bonuses, and no penalties, just like the PHB races (except humans).

I, for one, am shocked and dismayed, but haven't seen much discussion of it. I admit it's a minor quibble, compared with all the other cool stuff we're seeing, but I don't want monster races to be built this way.

I fully understand the game-mechanical reason behind this, of not handing anyone a min-maxed character on a silver platter, and that's valid. Still, considering point-buy and arrays are the preferred stat-gen methods, couldn't we just make the net benefit be +2 (like humans) and build races with penalties to abilities?

In fact, before I saw this I had the theory that gnomes had been monsterized for precisely this reason -- so that they could have -2 to STR without ruining the all-positive ability mod thing that the PHB had going.

So I guess we've finally discovered where the "Verisimilitude vs. Gamism" line is for me, and it's Goblins being more charismatic than Elves. Among other issues.

Does this bother anyone else? I still think racial special features are more important than this, but seriously, Orcs should be strong but a little dumb, and Minotaurs should be really strong and really dumb, and Goblins should be freaky-fast but smelly and off-putting. That sort of thing.

Have I finally become a grognard? Or do people agree?

 

[kennew142]

So I guess we've finally discovered where the "Verisimilitude vs. Gamism" line is for me, and it's Goblins being more charismatic than Elves. Among other issues.

Does this bother anyone else? I still think racial special features are more important than this, but seriously, Orcs should be strong but a little dumb, and Minotaurs should be really strong and really dumb, and Goblins should be freaky-fast but smelly and off-putting. That sort of thing.

Have I finally become a grognard? Or do people agree?

If you look at the depiction of goblins in myth and legend, they are quite charismatic. Why shouldn't they be?

 

[Greenfaun]

If you look at the depiction of goblins in myth and legend, they are quite charismatic. Why shouldn't they be?

Um, which myths and legends? I'm not a folklorist, but generally in fairy tales and whatnot goblins are hostile, greedy, dangerous, and often have predatory physical features like sharp pointy teeth or the like.

In Tolkien, which hopefully we can agree is one of the supporting pillars of the consensual unreality of D&D, goblins are smallish, ugly, bloodthirsty, cowardly, and they bully each other and sing sadistic songs to dwarves that they've treed. They also may or may not be a subtype of orc, I'm still a little unclear on that.

In more recent pop-culture, Harry Potterverse goblins are short, ugly, cantankerous, and rich. Spiderwick Chronicles goblins are nearly feral, ugly, and mean. Even Labyrinth goblins are mostly a bad lot, and David Bowie was the only one who wasn't physically deformed.

So, that's where my concept of goblins comes from. It's true that they're generally highly social, but that's about as close to charismatic as you can get, and that's not close enough to justify a racial bonus for me.

Of course WOTC could change their goblins, it's their prerogative and their IP, but it clashes with my internal concept of the definition of the word "goblin" and I don't think I'm the only one.


... whoa, that turned into a wall of text. Sorry. All this is a sidetrack to the already small and persnickety topic I meant to be discussing with this thread, though. Say you want Goblins to be charismatic, fine. Should they also be as strong and tough as humans? Or can they be specialized and unusual when compared to humans, by being much better at some things and noticeably worse at others, across the board?

Not that stat penalties are even the only way to achieve that feel in the game, really. I just kinda think they work.

 

[Surgoshan]

Historically, goblins were mischievous and malign underground creatures, perhaps related to kobolds. Kobolds were largely house spirits and could be helpful or malign based on how you treated them. In neither case were they considered terribly charismatic, but were instead the bearers of chance (for good or ill), but could be assuaged with treats and reverence.

That said, part of the philosophy of 4e was that there aren't any penalties. Some races are better at certain things rather than being worse at others. There's no reason a goblin couldn't be as strong as a man, but it's more likely to be nimble and tricksy instead.

 

[theNater]

I'm at an opinion that falls between your second and third option. Mine would read:
Yes, because for playable races, the distinguishing factor should be powers and abilities, rather than stats.

The current set up has non-optimal races for a class behind optimal races by 2 points in the primary stat. If we include racial penalties or higher bonuses, the difference goes to 4 points, which is really significant. It's important to make non-optimal characters playable, and giving some races a (relative) penalty of -2 to most attack and damage rolls is really harsh.

However, we can still get the flavor through careful use of racial abilities. If you want minotaurs to be strong and dumb, we can provide them with a racial power or feature that provides them with a bonus to melee damage. This will encourage minotaurs to play melee characters(for whom intelligence is generally not vital), and keep the stereotype accurate. However, it won't remove the feasibility of an erudite minotaur wizard. He'll be on par for power with most other wizards, so those who want to play against type aren't summarily punished.

 

[lutecius]

For common, potentially playable humanoid monsters, more or less balanced racial traits and powers is a better solution than ECL.
But these are just guidelines anyway, i don't think they can be used as is. They still want you to pay for the next manuals, campaign settings and ddi.

Yes, the cha bonus for goblins is either a typo or completely inconsistent. The goblins are described as ill-tempered, cowardly and dirty. None of which should help for Diplomacy or Intimidate.

Small creatures get a penalty to range, and maybe the halfling's penalty on 2 handed weapons described in the "being small" PHB paragraph.

 

[Greenfaun]

However, we can still get the flavor through careful use of racial abilities. If you want minotaurs to be strong and dumb, we can provide them with a racial power or feature that provides them with a bonus to melee damage. This will encourage minotaurs to play melee characters(for whom intelligence is generally not vital), and keep the stereotype accurate. However, it won't remove the feasibility of an erudite minotaur wizard. He'll be on par for power with most other wizards, so those who want to play against type aren't summarily punished.

This is a good point. I'm definitely in favor of the design principle of not penalizing weird choices. I like that they make it much harder to build an ineffective character, especially because it makes it less likely to accidentally build an ineffective character. This is a good thing on balance.

I think part of the problem was I liked the idea of playing a monster race in 3E, but the mechanics were such a barrier to effectiveness. Now they've gone in the other direction farther than I'd like, but it's probably still an improvement. Guess I'll have to see.

 

[Atomictophat]

Yes, the cha bonus for goblins is either a typo or completely inconsistent. The goblins are described as ill-tempered, cowardly and dirty. None of which should help for Diplomacy or Intimidate.

When you say, 'ill-tempered, cowardly and dirty' I read it as,
'down-to-business-serious,'
'smart-enough-to-get-itself-killed' and
'so-humble-he-does-care-about-keeping-himself-clean.'

 

[Shroomy]

The way I see it, this is another example where PC and NPC/monsters rules diverge. Monsters can have negative ability modifiers, and they do, but that is a result of their level and role, not their race. PCs are not built like monsters, so they would get the racial bonuses to two of their stats. From what I've seen, monsters and their related PC write-ups are related together by racial powers.

 

[lutecius]

When you say, 'ill-tempered, cowardly and dirty' I read it as,
'down-to-business-serious,'
'smart-enough-to-get-itself-killed' and
'so-humble-he-does-care-about-keeping-himself-clean.'

uh okaay. Not sure what you mean. Are you saying they should get a charisma bonus for that? And these are not my words, the MM actually uses the words "ill-tempered" and "cowardly", oh and their lair is "stinking and soiled".