D&D 5E Human racial abilty modifiers

[Szatany]

In this case, I'd prefer a +2 fixed bonus for non-humans on their "main" stat. This way, humans overall have less of a bonus, but more flexibility.

What if we expressed human flexibility as giving them, for example, +2 to two lowest scores. Would that be desirable by players?

 

[steeldragons]

What if we expressed human flexibility as giving them, for example, +2 to two lowest scores. Would that be desirable by players?

Not in the slightest.

How does giving +2 to the 2 lowest scores (so they're getting +4?!) express "flexibility"?

But doesn't even need an explanation. Just no. Bad idea.

 

[Szatany]

Not in the slightest.

How does giving +2 to the 2 lowest scores (so they're getting +4?!) express "flexibility"?

But doesn't even need an explanation. Just no. Bad idea.

Its quite simple really. They become flexible because they don't suck at anything (all scores, for most characters, will be at 11+)

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Ability score adjustments from your class are new to this edition (as far as I know), and I'm generally okay with that. It makes sense that training in your class would improve related ability scores.

Since each class provides you with a single choice from a list of two or three ability scores, perhaps humans could be given two choices from that list, but they can't be the same.

Overall, I've come to feel that racial modifiers should be an optional module. For those who want any concept to be viable, there would be no modifiers, and for those who want a simulationist approach, the module would include both bonuses and penalties with a human baseline.

 

[tuxgeo]

Since feats are optional and/or will be baked into basic characters, humans could still get a bonus feat that is just fixed (or fixed by class) in the basic game. Then it's just an extra special ability without introducing feat slots generally.

Would you have WotC list that "extra special ability" in the write-up of the Human race, or in each particular class? (I mean, would you have the Fighter description say, "Humans get an extra maneuver at 1st level," and have the Wizard description say, "Humans get an extra cantrip at 1st level?")

As far as ability modifiers, I sort of like the idea of humans get a +2 to any stat, simply because that might inspire a return to humans being the modal racial choice. I like that aesthetically (though I understand if others do not).

And I dislike that. If we're to give humans a +2 to any stat, they'll match the extremities of any other class. Dwarves will be amazingly sturdy, but not any more so than the sturdiest humans; Elves will be amazingly dextrous, but not any more so than the most dextrous humans; Halflings will be amazingly nimble and lucky, but not any more so than the nimblest and luckiest humans; and so on. That robs players of one of the main incentives to play those other races.

Yes, we need incentives to help make humans the modal racial choice; but it doesn't have to be the ability score boosts; it could be other things. Klaus has already given several good examples; and of his, I like the "next larger skill die" option the most.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Ability score adjustments from your class are new to this edition (as far as I know), and I'm generally okay with that. It makes sense that training in your class would improve related ability scores.

Since each class provides you with a single choice from a list of two or three ability scores, perhaps humans could be given two choices from that list, but they can't be the same.

That's a good idea. Easy to balance, easy to explain, will fit most play styles without any additional adjustment. About the only thing it doesn't cover is a player who wants to play a human and then have the character go somewhat against type (i.e. smart fighter). The ability to arrange the scores will cover that in most cases. I suspect that starting with what you said, and then extending it somehow, would do the job.

 

[The Shadow]

Since each class provides you with a single choice from a list of two or three ability scores, perhaps humans could be given two choices from that list, but they can't be the same.

I like it! Basically, humans have no innate 'edge' to rely on, relative to other races, so they have to train harder. It also definitely brings out human diversity.

 

[Klaus]

Ability score adjustments from your class are new to this edition (as far as I know), and I'm generally okay with that. It makes sense that training in your class would improve related ability scores.

Since each class provides you with a single choice from a list of two or three ability scores, perhaps humans could be given two choices from that list, but they can't be the same.

Overall, I've come to feel that racial modifiers should be an optional module. For those who want any concept to be viable, there would be no modifiers, and for those who want a simulationist approach, the module would include both bonuses and penalties with a human baseline.

That is a very good option, but I'd do it in addition to a racial +1 to any one ability, at least.

 

[Stalker0]

I liked 3e implementation honestly. That free feat was huge, even without ability bumps most of my players were human.

I'm not a fan of the current system, not for balance but for flavor. The fact that humans are on average just better than other races does not mirror most fantasy tropes at all.

 

[DonAdam]

Would you have WotC list that "extra special ability" in the write-up of the Human race, or in each particular class? (I mean, would you have the Fighter description say, "Humans get an extra maneuver at 1st level," and have the Wizard description say, "Humans get an extra cantrip at 1st level?")

Either way, but it probably makes sense to put it with the race. Then there could be a sidebar about how it would be ok if a human picked any one of these abilities rather than the one associated with a particular class.

And I dislike that. If we're to give humans a +2 to any stat, they'll match the extremities of any other class. Dwarves will be amazingly sturdy, but not any more so than the sturdiest humans; Elves will be amazingly dextrous, but not any more so than the most dextrous humans; Halflings will be amazingly nimble and lucky, but not any more so than the nimblest and luckiest humans; and so on. That robs players of one of the main incentives to play those other races.

Yes, we need incentives to help make humans the modal racial choice; but it doesn't have to be the ability score boosts; it could be other things. Klaus has already given several good examples; and of his, I like the "next larger skill die" option the most.

Well, the goal was to take away that incentive, though like I said I recognize that it clashes with others' goals of making other races explicitly exceed human potential on some margins.

The reason I like it is this: a human can get a really good score in any class's prime ability, so it's obvious why they're a good fit. That makes human the default, "simple" way to make sure your character is effective.

With non-humans, I would make them shine in particular classes through more involved/fiddly special abilities. So for instance, Dwarves currently increase their weapon die size with axes. That's a pretty good incentive to play a dwarf fighter, especially if (as the recent Google Hangout indicated) combat expertise dice become expressed in terms of weapon die. Halflings could have an easier time finding hiding spots. High elves might get to extra spell slots.

Basically these just have to be good enough options to make it a hard choice between having the highest possible prime stat and the racial options; it's strange to me that non-humans get both.

All that said, there are *lots* of options for assigning racial ability mods that are better than the current system. Hopefully we'll see one of them.