D&D 5E I'd like to see Next do away with racial stat mods for PC races.

[Mistwell]

OD&D, B/X and BECMI don't have racial modifiers.

True, but isn't race = class for those, and therefore assumed in your attack charts anyway?

 

[Nikosandros]

True, but isn't race = class for those, and therefore assumed in your attack charts anyway?

Yes, race = class (well, not really in OD&D, but that would derail the thread too much), but I'm not sure how is the bonus factored in the attack charts. They use the same chart as fighters. Dwarves normally get a bonus to Con, but they have the same HD as fighters (d8). Elves traditionally get a Dex bonus, but they don't have anything like that in BECMI.

 

[Quartz]

Some insightful reactions. I think I prefer the stat minimum to my original suggesttion.

 

[the Jester]

Well we still get the classic problem from 4th edition when we use the current method. You are still more than likely to pick the race class combo that has better synergy because you don't want multiple odd score stats, especially if you are going to point buy route.

Actually, I'm more likely to pick the class-race combo that appeals to me conceptually, and min-maxing be damned.

Moreover, I actively, strongly, do not want every pc I play to have an 18 (or even a 15) in his prime stat. That's boring. The practically-required nature of high stats in 4e is one of its big flaws, IMHO.

 

[Scorpio616]

Agree, "You must be this agile to be an elf" is far better than "You get +X-Y". The first keeps players on a level field, the later rewards bean counters and min-maxers.

 

[The Human Target]

Agree, "You must be this agile to be an elf" is far better than "You get +X-Y". The first keeps players on a level field, the later rewards bean counters and min-maxers.

Honest question from someone who started in 3e, how does min stat requirements keep the playing field level?

 

[Wiseblood]

[MENTION=22574]The Human Target[/MENTION] it puts characters of a given race within the paradigm of the race in most fantasy fiction. It does not offer a boon for choosing a race.


I agree with the OP.

 

[Derren]

Why not just remove races entirely? Make everyone equal and just write "Elf" or "Human" into the background.
When that is done also remove classes and make them background, too.

Agree, "You must be this agile to be an elf" is far better than "You get +X-Y". The first keeps players on a level field, the later rewards bean counters and min-maxers.

The first also prevents you from playing a not very dexterous elf, etc.

 

[Mistwell]

Why not just remove races entirely? Make everyone equal and just write "Elf" or "Human" into the background.
When that is done also remove classes and make them background, too.

Because it's D&D, not Generic Fantasy Game. Races and Classes are defining characteristics of the game.

 

[Atomo]

I like the "+1 from race, +1 from class" approach we're seeing (though honestly, I would love races to go back to +1 to one stat, -1 to another).

As house rule on our home campaign, we are not using a -1 to another, but putting a maximum of 15 on it. So dwarves never can have a Dexterity greater than 15, for example. The limit of 15 was chosen because it still permits prerequisites for multiclassing.