D&D 5E D&D Q&A 12/13: Racial Ability Scores, Cleric Options & Monsters

[ZombieRoboNinja]

There's a new Q&A up.

First question: Will there be racial penalties to ability scores? (Answer: no. Carrot is more fun than stick.)

Second question: Will there be room for "white mage" style cloth-wearing clerics? (Answer: yes. In response to feedback they're putting more stuff like armor proficiencies back into the deities/domains, so your deity selection can determine whether you're a plate-wearing warpriest or a hemp-clad hippie healer. And also there will be guidelines for customizing deities/domains, so don't get your panties in a bunch about all clerics of (X) having to wear the same armor.)

Third question: How are monsters designed? (Answer: math and playtesting.)

To my mind, the second answer is the only interesting one here. All good news, in my book.

 

[Gadget]

Racial ability scores: I remember when they first announced D&DN there was quite clamour to actually make the choice of race more meaningful or make it merely cosmetic. Most of this sentiment seems to have been lost in hub-bub of themes (sorry specialities ) and later Expertise Dice. I'm still not feeling it with the races quite frankly. I'm not sure what the answer is though.

White Mage cleric: sounds like a reasonable approach to take, time will tell.

Monster design: Just don't give me monsters that use the same 'build' rules as players please.

 

[Ratskinner]

Racial ability scores: I remember when they first announced D&DN there was quite clamour to actually make the choice of race more meaningful or make it merely cosmetic. Most of this sentiment seems to have been lost in hub-bub of themes (sorry specialities ) and later Expertise Dice. I'm still not feeling it with the races quite frankly. I'm not sure what the answer is though.

I agree here. I kinda feel like races have lost a lot of flavor over the years (I mean, they used to be a class in some incarnations!) However, I'm not sure what to do about it while keeping the game relatively simple.

Monster design: Just don't give me monsters that use the same 'build' rules as players please.

I'm kinda getting the feel that that won't be the default, but it will be an option. What I'm not getting a feel for is whether or not two monsters will be identical if created in different ways. As you say, time will tell, though.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'm disappointed by the answer on racial penalties. I don't feel like it addresses my concerns. I want a human baseline (because I intrinsically understand it), with bonuses and penalties representing how each race differs within the setting.

I personally don't care if every character concept is equally viable, but I do care that the character generation rules match my expectations for the setting.

That said, some people do care, and I believe that there should be an option for races to simply have no modifiers.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Q: Will clerics of the Big Honkin' Magic diety be better than wizards?

A: They darn well ought to be, but won't. (My prediction.)

I prefer that PC races don't have penalties, but some monster races should. (Goblins shouldn't be as strong as Humans. They just shouldn't!)

 

[Nellisir]

I like all the answers. I've been arguing carrot over stick for years, and it can be pretty simple. I would like to see race mean more as well. About the only aspect of the game that hasn't changed in 30+ years.
Clerics sound fine.
Monsters...isn't this obvious? How else would you do it? Dartboard?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I've been arguing carrot over stick for years, and it can be pretty simple. I would like to see race mean more as well. About the only aspect of the game that hasn't changed in 30+ years.

I think there are a couple issues with 5e races that confuse the issue a bit. Like, if the only way to offset not having penalties is to give humans +1 to everything, that seems a bit silly to me.

 

[FireLance]

I don't see why there can't be an optional racial penalties module which DMs can opt into if they want, granting races additional ability score bonuses or other benefits in exchange for an ability score penalty. The DM can even have the penalties apply to races on a case-by-case basis, or allow the players the choice of whether the penalties apply to their character.

 

[FireLance]

I think there are a couple issues with 5e races that confuse the issue a bit. Like, if the only way to offset not having penalties is to give humans +1 to everything, that seems a bit silly to me.

Not exactly, in my view. 4e also had no racial penalties and humans simply had freedom of choice where to put their ability score bonus. Giving humans +1 to everything in 5e is (IMO) due more to the fact that humans don't get any other racial benefits. In 4e, for example, humans had an extra feat, training in an extra skill, bonuses to defenses, and a racial power or an extra at-will power.

 

[Sunseeker]

Q: Will clerics of the Big Honkin' Magic diety be better than wizards?

A: They darn well ought to be, but won't. (My prediction.)

I don't see why they should. It's bad class design.

Okay, you can be a wizard.

Or you can be a cleric and pick the right god and be better than a wizard. Sounds like a return to CoDzilla.