Getting rid of ability bonuses/penalties for races

[AllisterH]

A general question.

If, across all editions of D&D (including Pathfinder now), if you got rid of the actual bonuses/penalties or made them generic (you can pick and choose what those bonuses/penalties were), how much would that affect the game?

Would we see more non-standard race-class matchups? And, would that be a good thing?

 

[Aus_Snow]

I think that there is too little differentiation these days, as it is. So, for example, my house rules include restrictions on race/class combos.

But anyway, sure, you would definitely see more 'unusual' combinations more often. Whether that's a good thing or not, for each group out there, is not for me to say.

And as far as game balance is concerned, I can't see something like this tipping the scales anywhere near as much as many, many 'official' rules already do.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A general question.

If, across all editions of D&D (including Pathfinder now), if you got rid of the actual bonuses/penalties or made them generic (you can pick and choose what those bonuses/penalties were), how much would that affect the game?

Would we see more non-standard race-class matchups? And, would that be a good thing?

I am not sure if it would really change much things. I think one of the reasons to play a non-standard race-class matchup might be to find a way to utilize its mechanical benefits in unexpecting ways.

But another reason is just to do it because you want to be different.
And yet another reason to do it is because you prefer one race over all others.

So, overall, I suspect it might lead to more standard race-class matchups, but I am not sure it would be much more.

I don't think that more would be a good thing, but it might not be bad either.

The question is - what's the point of having multiple races? It always seems the primary reason for them in literature is to have a different culture and emphasize this culture stronger by creating physiological differences. Sometimes, the differences in culture can be traced back to those differences - a long lived race might have different priorities then a short-lived one, creatures that can see in a pitch black night or underground cavern might have different worries then other creatures.

Translated into a game, this might lead to preferences for specific classes. And it's logical to create benefits that go along with that and support these archetypes. But strictly speaking, there is no need to do it with ability bonuses or penalties. If you write the "fluff" for a race describing their "iconic" classes and how they excel at that, pair this great artwork depicting these archetypes, most players will naturally want to play someone like that. And some players will want to play something explicitly different.

 

[Rechan]

I intentionally sweep the bonuses under the rug (or, rather, I give everyone an assumed 20 in all stats for the purposes of determining to-hit), so I anticipate there'll be less "perfect race/class combo".

 

[doctorhook]

With 4E, races are significantly more differentiated from one another than they were in previous editions. To this end, and especially in the case of the PCs (who shouldn't have to be "typical", IMHO), I've given all the races a floating ability score bonus in place of one of their static bonuses, in order to encourage uncommon race/class combinations.

To demonstrate, almost every race in 4E grants a static +2 bonus to two specific ability scores. With my houserule, players choose one of those two static +2 bonuses to keep, and then simply add +2 to any other ability score. (In the case of Humans, players simply get two +2 bonuses to apply to any two ability scores.) For example:

• Normally, Drow PC get a +2 bonus to Dexterity and Charisma. This makes a Drow PC optimal as a Rogue or Sorcerer, for example.
  
• With my houserule, however, Drow PCs get +2 to either Dexterity or Charisma, and another +2 bonus to any ability score other than the one chosen for their first bonus. This way, a Drow PC can have +2 to Dexterity and Intelligence for a Wizard character, or +2 to Wisdom and Charisma for a Cleric character, and of course, +2 to Dexterity and Charisma is still an option.

The net effect is going to be that Human PCs are very slightly more powerful than usual, but it shouldn't have much of an impact overall (except for making Human characters slightly more common than before).

FWIW, these rules obviously only apply to PCs. My houserule lets Gnolls (for example) be potentially much better Swordmages (for example) than they would normally be, thus encouraging Gnoll players to make a Swordmage. Does this mean that my world is full of Gnoll Swordmage NPCs? Hell no.

Also worth noting is that while this makes every race work with a lot more classes, every race will still have classes that it's not perfect for. For example, Goliath characters will still have a bonus to either Strength or Constitution, neither of which is at all useful to a Wizard character. (However, since a Goliath can now put one of his bonuses into Intelligence, they still have a lot more potential as Wizards than they do under the normal rules.)

 

[NaturalZero]

My group is almost to the point where we just pick a few racial abilities and say the character is what ever race best fits the player's desired concept. We feel that having very specific racial bonuses set in stone works against creative concepts, so dropping them altogether really wouldn't be an issue for us and certainly wouldn't tip the scales of balance.

With my houserule, players choose one of those two static +2 bonuses to keep, and then simply add +2 to any other ability score. (In the case of Humans, players simply get two +2 bonuses to apply to any two ability scores.)

I like this idea. It allows for more concepts to be more viable mechanically without having to reflavor everywhere.

 

[Mort_Q]

My group is almost to the point where we just pick a few racial abilities and call the character what ever race best fits the player's desired concept. We feel that having very specific racial bonuses set in stone works against creative concepts, so dropping them altogether really wouldn't be an issue for us and certainly wouldn't tip the scales of balance.

I agree. I've considered doing something similar in the campaign I want to run (if it ever gets going). I'm OK with some of the racial stereotypes, but... I hate feeling that if I want to a good XXXXXXX, I have to choose YYYYYYYY race.

 

[doctorhook]

I agree. I've considered doing something similar in the campaign I want to run (if it ever gets going). I'm OK with some of the racial stereotypes, but... I hate feeling that if I want to a good XXXXXXX, I have to choose YYYYYYYY race.

I completely agree. I hate that feeling too, although that's exactly what my houserule fixes. Give it a go, and let me know how it works for you! (If you're playing 4E, I mean.)

BTW, what part of Edmonton are you from? I live in Sherwood Park!

 

[Gort]

From a powergaming perspective: Do this, and dwarf fighters get even better. They have tons of non-stat bonuses to make up for having 2 less strength than their peers, and it works very well. If they can get the extra strength as well, that's definite power creep.

Isn't this houserule supposed to weaken the stereotypes, not strengthen them?

 

[Alas]

With 4E, races are significantly more differentiated from one another than they were in previous editions. To this end, and especially in the case of the PCs (who shouldn't have to be "typical", IMHO), I've given all the races a floating ability score bonus in place of one of their static bonuses, in order to encourage uncommon race/class combinations.

That's pretty much how changelings (doppelgangers) work, as presented in the Eberron Player's Guide. Their Charisma bonus is fixed, and they get to choose an Intelligence bonus or a Dexterity bonus.