D&D (2024) D&D 6th edition - What do you want to see?

[Lord of Nessus]

If you want to ruin your game with non-sensical variant rules, than that's on you. There's a reason why the variant rules require explicit permission from the DM.

LOL, but giving every Human a +1 to each ability score isn't nonsensical? Remember what the whole point of ability scores adjustments was in the first place, and what it meant: it showed how your character compared to an average Human, who was assumed to have a 10 in each ability score, like the Commoner NPC stats in the Monster Manual. A PC getting +1 in each ability score might make sense if you assume that the +1s are because that particular Human is an adventurer, and thus more hardy, etc. than the average bloke. But if you apply the +1 to all Humans, it becomes a farce, because then what the hell are the +1s in reference to? Bonuses and penalties make no sense except in reference to an average specimen of something. The Commoner gets scores of 10 in every ability score because the Commoner's not an adventurer. Other Human NPCs in the Monster Manual receive different bonuses according to what they are (a Knight, a Noble, a Spy, etc.) Also, the variant Human rules in no way "ruin" a game, and many choose to use them. The decision to make those the variant rules and not make those the standard and the +1 to each ability score the variant was simply an arbitrary decision on the part of the designers, and could have easily gone the other way.

 

[Lord of Nessus]

Why do you assume that all elves within a given setting should necessarily form a broader group than all Medieval English people? If we want to assume that all elves are from one culturally-homogeneous region, then that's a perfectly reasonable assumption for any given game world.

It's weird enough that there are multiple intelligent species on one planet. It would be significantly more unusual if every species showed up in multiple regions independently.

Except there is no necessity for them to show up independently in multiple regions in order to have separate cultures. After all, Humans aren't thought to have originated independently in separate areas of the word (whether created or evolved), are thought to have come from one "batch", and yet Humans do not all share the same culture. Even if you started with one batch of Elves, if one group settled in one type of terrain in one area of the world and the other settled in different terrain in a distant part of the world, you'd expect the two groups to diverge over time and not stay identical.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But if you apply the +1 to all Humans, it becomes a farce, because then what the hell are the +1s in reference to?

In this case, it's in reference to the other races. Humans are (on average) stronger, tougher, and more charismatic than elves are. That's just how their world works. Humans are also (on average) stronger than hill dwarves, but not as strong as mountain dwarves.

It's also important to remember that NPCs are created using these same rules, if you actually care about statting them out. They all benefit from rolling 4d6 drop low, with standard racial stat bonuses. There's nothing in this edition about 3d6 being any sort of average. The numbers in the Monster Manual are just a simplification, to make things easier to run, in situations where you don't really care about accurate modeling.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Except there is no necessity for them to show up independently in multiple regions in order to have separate cultures. After all, Humans aren't thought to have originated independently in separate areas of the word (whether created or evolved), are thought to have come from one "batch", and yet Humans do not all share the same culture. Even if you started with one batch of Elves, if one group settled in one type of terrain in one area of the world and the other settled in different terrain in a distant part of the world, you'd expect the two groups to diverge over time and not stay identical.

And if you want your elves to do that, in your world, then you're more than free to change their stats. The DMG goes into great length about how you should change the abilities of each race or class, depending on how you change their place in the world.

By default, though, the racial proficiency in longbow makes perfect sense under a specific assumption about how the races are spread throughout the world.

 

[abirdcall]

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Your mention of "theme" makes me think you are disagreeing, but then you mentioned "a bunch of numbers" which sounds like ability scores! Please clarify...

Having numbers isn't a bad thing. There are lots of numbers in the game.

Having a lack of theme, or 'thematic mush' of numbers isn't a game I want to play. I want the numbers to be used to create theme/narrative. Ability scores are a tool to that end.

In other words I only care that my character has a +3 to whatever if that has actual meaning in the narrative.

 

[Lanefan]

.... seriously? You actually think it's the ability score adjustments that make a member of a Race an Elf, Dwarf, or whatever rather than being a Human? For starters, ability score adjustments for the various Races and Sub-Races haven't been consistent and identical across editions - Humans used to receive no ability score bonuses or penalties, and now they do (+1 to all ability scores), so I guess either 5th Edition doesn't have any "real" Humans by your definition, or else prior editions did not!

Yeah, not all 5e rules are great...

But that said, it's the relative differences that matter; and those can be easily seen by putting a 12 into each stat and seeing what the racial adjustments do to them.

Likewise with Elves, who have only positive score adjustments in 5e but which used to have penalties as well. What makes an Elf an Elf is not a +2 to Dexterity (If my Human PC raises his Dex so it matches an Elf's, does he become a Elf?) but biology. Of course, most Elves are raised by two Elven parents in an Elven society and pick up the language, culture, etc. but an Elf that was raised by two Dwarves (because, say, the parents were killed by Orcs and the Dwarves rescued the baby) and only learned the Dwarven language would still be a Elf, because it was born to an Elven mother and had an Elven father. Said individual would still have the physical traits that would identify him/her as an Elf (i.e. pointy ears) and nobody would confuse them for a Dwarf.

Perhaps, but that Dwarf-raised Elf would be highly unusual* and not all that reflective of the species as a whole.

* - unusual enough that I'd have to think long and hard about whether to allow it as a chosen background without some sort of random roll attached.

 

[S'mon]

It's also important to remember that NPCs are created using these same rules, if you actually care about statting them out. They all benefit from rolling 4d6 drop low, with standard racial stat bonuses. There's nothing in this edition about 3d6 being any sort of average. The numbers in the Monster Manual are just a simplification, to make things easier to run, in situations where you don't really care about accurate modeling.

You seriously think that the PHB rules on making PCs are intended to represent typical NPCs too? And the entries at the back of the MM are not?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You seriously think that the PHB rules on making PCs are intended to represent typical NPCs too? And the entries at the back of the MM are not?

Check the DMG. They're both equally valid ways for generating NPCs. (It's not like generating stats for a PC, where the rules definitely assume that you will roll, and only suggest using the array if you're too lazy to go through the effort.)

The only question is whether you care about getting the right answer, or if you're okay with sacrificing the integrity of the model for the sake of speed.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It's also important to remember that NPCs are created using these same rules, if you actually care about statting them out. They all benefit from rolling 4d6 drop low, with standard racial stat bonuses. There's nothing in this edition about 3d6 being any sort of average. The numbers in the Monster Manual are just a simplification, to make things easier to run, in situations where you don't really care about accurate modeling.

"A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average, but adventurers and many monsters are a cut above average in most abilities" (PHB 173). This value of "10 or 11" as the average is corroborated by the stats for the commoner and further implied in the system math itself which assigns those scores a modifier of +0, but hopefully it's enough to establish it that it's stated clearly and explicitly in the rules defining the ability scores. Now, if your "model" is to give all NPCs 4d6-drop-1 abilities, then NPCs generated by this model will have an average score of 12-and-a-bit. Which is not 10 or 11. Therefore your model produces results that diverge from what is established to be reality. Therefore your model is not accurate. Therefore you need to reconsider your model. I think if you try using 3d6 instead, your model will henceforth produce the correct average.

 

[CubicsRube]

I don't really know where I'd want to start with a 6e, but after onboarding new players, I'd really like to see WotC make the jump to dropping ability scores and just using modifiers.

Beyond that there's a bunch of things that suit my personal taste, but I'd love to see them lean more into backgrounds, maybe even having race, background, culture, then character class as build options to make things more interesting.

Each of these choices should have weight, but also build a good narrative for where my character has come from before they became an adventurer.

Maybe Doogan was a dwarf that grew up amongst elves in silverymoon as a herder before he felt the call of Pelor and became a cleric. Why not? Even without further details I feel like Doogan here has an interesting story, and if I was in a party woth Doogan I'd want to know more about him.