Alternatives to Human Ability Score Boosts

[ferratus]

So a lot of people are having problems with the human ability score boost, because it seems to be at first glance OP (which it really isn't, as judged by my playtesting anyway) or because it means that humans will have better overall stats than their demi-human bretheren (which it does).

I think the main thing we have to remember is the designer's intentions. In this case, it is to give players the idea that humans are more skillful or adaptable without the use of feats, which some people don't want to use, and skills, which some people don't want to use. They want to keep a very basic game without customizable fiddly bits for people who don't want them.

But using an ability score bonus across the board is a bit of kludge, because it is alienating to some fans, particularly the Old School ones. They generally like the idea of humans who are ordinary with limitless potential. So they like their humans to have no class or level limits.

So my solutions is this. GIVE HUMANS A +10% XP BONUS. This combines the idea from 3e and 4e that humans are more skillful and adaptable than demi-humans, with the old school idea that humans more potential to rise above their demi-human peers.

With the flatter math, being a level or two ahead would be enticing because you get a new spell, combat ability, hp and damage, but you don't really pull ahead of your lower level peers in quite the same way. I think being slightly better at your class is balanced with the racial abilities that demi-humans get. Perhaps we'd have to give a +2 to an ability score of the player's choice still, but we shouldn't need to give +1 to all the rest.

Now this rule would be a problem with those who don' count XP, but I think it would be easy enough for those guys to simply allow the fighter to level up 1/2 way through the first adventure, and keep him one level above for the rest of the game.

That is my alternative. Critique it and suggest your own.

 

[kerleth]

Personally, I like the +1 to everything. It's the +2 to a single stat, making it higher than another races "favored stat" that bothers me. Even though technically every race maxes out at a 20, it still just doesn't feel right to me. HOWEVER, If humans stay exactly the same till the day DDN is published, I'd be okay with that. I think that the problem is what the fantasy races represent. In a sizeable percentage of the literature these races do seem just better than humans. That obviously won't work for gamers interested in party balance. Another key point is that humans are kind of a go-to I don't have a specific race in mind option. They need to be adaptable so that they can be applied to almost any character concept. The fantasy races are based on stereotypes, so it's okay for them to be more focused. Humans also need to be easy to use as an intro race for someone who's just learning IMO. The current version might not be perfect, but it does accomplish both of those. Myself, I would prefer a sort of choose a culture option like how you choose subrace for the other races. I saw a good one of these for 3rd edition on giant in the playground forums, but I don't have a handy link.

 

[john112364]

I was thinking about this yesterday actually. Here's my thoughts:

Instead of +2 to one stat and +1 to the rest, how about a +1 to one or two stats of the players choice. (I waffle back and forth on how many stats). For a racial ability give them a +1 to all saves and/or ability checks. This way if you choose not to use skills you will more than likely still call for ability checks which will give humans some versatility and some built in durability.

Just a rough idea. Feedback?

 

[Szatany]

I also don't like the humans. Not from mechanical standpoint, but from roleplaying one. To me, the benefits of the human races are not what I consider humans in D&D. So in my games, I'm going to change them completly.
Right now I'm considering this setup:
- +2 to two lowest ability scores
- Your background grants you one extra skill. Choose any one you don't have and that fits the background thematically. DM must agree to it.
- You gain an extra speciality, but its benefits are delayed. You gain the 1st feat at level 1, 2nd feat at level 4, 3rd feat at level 8, and 4th feat at level 12.

 

[ferratus]

I was thinking about this yesterday actually. Here's my thoughts:

Instead of +2 to one stat and +1 to the rest, how about a +1 to one or two stats of the players choice. (I waffle back and forth on how many stats). For a racial ability give them a +1 to all saves and/or ability checks. This way if you choose not to use skills you will more than likely still call for ability checks which will give humans some versatility and some built in durability.

That is is a very graceful fix, and it amounts to the much same thing as an ability score boost because checks and saves are what you use ability scores for. It doesn't give you attack or damage bonuses though, so you'll probably need something else. +2 to any stat therefore probably has to stay, because that is the stat you would use for attacking things.

I still don't like the idea of humans getting higher than 18 on a stat, but if we just give humans +1/+1 to attack and damage, it seems like you are giving increased damage out to adventurers (such as the halfling dagger thread), which bothers some people. Maybe it is just a mutually assured destruction thing that humans have to lose their attack stat bonus, and racial weapons move to feats or specialities.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I'd also like to see humans with another option, but I don't want it to be bonus XP, because I like having the option to not use XP, and just level up by DM fiat.

 

[Yora]

How about not getting humans anything.
Other races get something and in return they also lose something.
Get +1 Dex, lose -1 Con.

 

[Kavon]

So a lot of people are having problems with the human ability score boost, because it seems to be at first glance OP (which it really isn't, as judged by my playtesting anyway) or because it means that humans will have better overall stats than their demi-human bretheren (which it does).

I'm with the second. +1 to all scores and one getting an additional 1 on top means that effectively all other races have -1 in all scores except the one they're good at.. with which they're average.

Cause that's what humans are, ability score wise - average.

The racial ability score modifiers were meant to show how they were above or below average compared to that which we can relate with (humans).


I understand why they chose to go this way, mechanically. They need to be feat and skill neutral.
Mechanically, it's fine. Thematically? Fitting for the 'übermensch', perhaps..

Now, what they should get instead, without having them get bonus feats/skill like in recent editions, or limiting other races in how high they can level like in earlier ones.. Not quite sure. I just know that I'd either have to really try to turn a blind eye to how it's now, or just not use humans (or an alternative human write-up).

 

[howandwhy99]

I'd really rather humans were the default. This doesn't mean they don't get anything. This means Everything Everyone gets is presented as if a character were a human.

And then, when alternate races / monsters are presented they demonstrate their differences from the human norm. They are novel, not us, something we can pretend to be even though we are clearly not flying monkeys or centauric yakfolk.

Playing another race should be cool in and of itself because it is different. It is means we have to push ourselves outside what is normal.

It's these nonhuman races that are presented poorly. They should have obvious drawbacks and benefits - according to each core class - when compared to the human norm. But we dropped Short size as a drawback. It all benefits for all races.

And while focusing on the positives for every race and monster can seem like dishing out dessert for everyone, without the weight of actual differences it simply doesn't fill one up.

In the past races were limited in class choice and highest level. Perhaps now they can be limited in alternate ways? Dwarves are stout and suffer penalties with arcane magics. Elves find it difficult to focus and are frail. Halflings are significantly shorter than the baseline and have a harder time in starting lands with their bigger equipment, from weapons to armor to ordering at the bar.

 

[Ellington]

Here's what I'd go for.

Human

Attribute bonus: +2 to any one score.
Adaptable: Gain training in any one bonus skill at first level.
Skilled: Your bonus from being trained in a skill begins at a +4 instead of a +3, and goes up to +8 instead of +7.