Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 8376768" data-attributes="member: 7030755">Really the core of your character is in class; race and background are just adjuncts at first level.&nbsp; This was the case across editions, and in fact in 1e and 2e the limitations that were placed on races, making only certain classes available to each of them, are what did the real work of reinforcing racial archetype.&nbsp; The ability score modifiers simply don't matter that much.&nbsp; In 1e, an ability of 6 gives you a -1 penalty, whereas a score of 15 gives you a +1 bonus.&nbsp; So a racial modifier that added or subtracted 1 point was most likely meaningless (though, because it was bell curve, if you were on the higher or lower end of that the impact of a 1 point modifier was greater).&nbsp; Further, ability scores overall were less important.&nbsp; Attack scores and saving throws were all tied to class.The unified d20 mechanic makes ability score modifiers more impactful, because now abilities affect saving throws, attack and damage bonuses, initiative, AC, HP, and a whole host of skills (though I'd still argue not that impactful mathematically).&nbsp; But they also got rid of race-class restrictions, basically trying to incentive them via ASI instead of just requiring them.&nbsp; I think moving toward a &quot;racial feats&quot; system would be good for this kind of open ended design to make race choice feel more distinctive while still giving dms and players options to determine what archetypes are important for their setting and game, not the ones prescribed by the designers.&nbsp; But for the classic archetypes, you may be able to just include a note or a box that says, if you want the classic archetypes, pick one of these classes.&nbsp; Like a little sidebar in the halfling section that points them toward being rogues.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Malmuria, post: 8376768, member: 7030755"] Really the core of your character is in class; race and background are just adjuncts at first level. This was the case across editions, and in fact in 1e and 2e the limitations that were placed on races, making only certain classes available to each of them, are what did the real work of reinforcing racial archetype. The ability score modifiers simply don't matter that much. In 1e, an ability of 6 gives you a -1 penalty, whereas a score of 15 gives you a +1 bonus. So a racial modifier that added or subtracted 1 point was most likely meaningless (though, because it was bell curve, if you were on the higher or lower end of that the impact of a 1 point modifier was greater). Further, ability scores overall were less important. Attack scores and saving throws were all tied to class. The unified d20 mechanic makes ability score modifiers more impactful, because now abilities affect saving throws, attack and damage bonuses, initiative, AC, HP, and a whole host of skills (though I'd still argue not that impactful mathematically). But they also got rid of race-class restrictions, basically trying to incentive them via ASI instead of just requiring them. I think moving toward a "racial feats" system would be good for this kind of open ended design to make race choice feel more distinctive while still giving dms and players options to determine what archetypes are important for [I]their [/I]setting and game, not the ones prescribed by the designers. But for the classic archetypes, you may be able to just include a note or a box that says, if you want the classic archetypes, pick one of these classes. Like a little sidebar in the halfling section that points them toward being rogues. [/QUOTE]

Verification