D&D 5E (2014) Letting Char-Gen Influence Race Concept

[Unwise]

If a PC really wants to play a non-optimized race, I go back to my old standard of simply setting upper and lower limits for ability scores per race, then let them put their racial bonuses wherever they want.
As Example:
A dwarf can't take their con below 10 or above 18 to start. So as a race they are tougher but this individual can put their +2 wherever they want. Their Int would be in the 8-16 range like everybody else, so they can't use the +2 to get an 18, like a gnome could.

 

[Hriston]

Quick WAG: Elves: advantage on all dex checks
Dwarves: advantage on con checks
Half-orcs: advantage on str checks
etc

This keeps a mechanical advantage without that advantage being in the ability scores. It divorces the racial advantages from combat advantages which is where I think most players get caught up. They worry about being the best in combat, or that if they're not the best they're group will be upset, etc. The advantages still apply to many situations withing combat but not the direct attack/damage effects.

I guess that what I would like to see is racial distinction that does not directly affect combat.

Of course advantage is a huge bonus, way more than a +1 or 2 on an ability score, but I do suppose it is somewhat more narrow in application, being limited only to checks, as you propose. But wouldn't this still be a big incentive for everyone to always put their highest scores into the same abilities for each race?

 

[Hriston]

If a PC really wants to play a non-optimized race, I go back to my old standard of simply setting upper and lower limits for ability scores per race, then let them put their racial bonuses wherever they want.
As Example:
A dwarf can't take their con below 10 or above 18 to start. So as a race they are tougher but this individual can put their +2 wherever they want. Their Int would be in the 8-16 range like everybody else, so they can't use the +2 to get an 18, like a gnome could.

This reminds me of the upper and lower limits in the 1e PH which I like to follow as a guideline to holding the races to their original flavor. This does sound like you're using an array, however. Would you impose the same limitations if the player was rolling for stats? Also, doesn't this approach restrict players options if they did have a character concept that didn't fall within those limits? To me, preserving character concept isn't that important, but to certain others it seems to be somewhat of a sacred cow. Personally, I'm much more concerned about the integrity of the race as a cohesive entity in the game-world, but I do think that character optimization puts pressure on both characters and the races which they are part of to conform to stereotypes which are not necessarily representative of the races as they must exist in all of their diversity.

 

[Ahrimon]

Of course advantage is a huge bonus, way more than a +1 or 2 on an ability score, but I do suppose it is somewhat more narrow in application, being limited only to checks, as you propose. But wouldn't this still be a big incentive for everyone to always put their highest scores into the same abilities for each race?

I think that's what I would like to see. A good bonus that re-enforces the flavor of the race. Elves are known for their dexterity, so rather than a bonus to dexterity they get something else that reflects their high dexterity. I don't know if it would cause people to put their highest scores into the same abilities. Rogues will still have a high dexterity, wizards a high intelligence. But there wouldn't be pressure to play a race with a dexterity bonus in order to be a rogue because the racial bonuses wouldn't apply directly to bonuses for attacking and damage.

 

[Hriston]

I think that's what I would like to see. A good bonus that re-enforces the flavor of the race. Elves are known for their dexterity, so rather than a bonus to dexterity they get something else that reflects their high dexterity. I don't know if it would cause people to put their highest scores into the same abilities. Rogues will still have a high dexterity, wizards a high intelligence. But there wouldn't be pressure to play a race with a dexterity bonus in order to be a rogue because the racial bonuses wouldn't apply directly to bonuses for attacking and damage.

But they would apply to three of the skills most closely associated with the rogue. Couple that with expertise on the same skills and you have even more of a reason to min/max your elven rogue, even if you don't also get the bonus to AC, attack, and damage.

 

[AmerginLiath]

I believe this comes from the fact that PCs are usually built by assigning ability scores, creating an opportunity for optimization based on racial stat bonuses, whereas the game's assumption about NPC abilities across any given race is that they are distributed randomly. It seems that there is a tendency to prioritize the character generation side of this equation, to the possible detriment of the original concept behind the race itself.

Huh. In 28 years of playing — including mostly with folks introduced to gaming with 3e, 4e, or RIFTS, I've literally never encountered anyone choose stats first versus race/class/concept, short of the few times that we've rolled every piece of the character randomly for fun. The idea of optimizing to THAT degree is just…alien…

 

[Hriston]

The only way to do what you all are talking about would be to remove ability score modifiers from race. I would then grant ability modifiers to the class. Something like if you get proficiency in the saving throw at 1st level you get a +2 to that ability score. Give mountain dwarves and half-elves a little something to compensate.

This response really shows how far things have gone in the direction of optimization. I think it (or something like it) is a good solution to the problem of providing freedom of choice for all kinds of character concepts by effectively separating race from class while still allowing optimization at present levels. In fact most if not all of the responses so far would fall under what I called in my original post "facilitating" or accommodating character optimization. The problem as I see it with these approaches is that they pretty much do away with everything that makes the races unique. As a DM I want to have races in my worlds that confer the same qualities on the characters that belong to them. If characters of any race can apply a bonus to any stat depending on which class they wish to join, then I'd be afraid of ending up with an oatmealy texture of races which look different, but all feel the same, as another recent thread pointed out. Unfortunately, the solution I would find preferable would be to sacrifice character concept to maintain the integrity of racial identity. The easiest way that I can see to do this is, of course, anathema to modern role playing, and that would be to declare race, roll stats in order, then choose a suitable class. Perhaps it's a bit too extreme, but it's the only way I can think of right now to prevent the feedback loop that results when race is made to serve character and then threatens to destroy the races by encouraging changes like turning longswords into rapiers because they are not "optimal." In fact a longsword is perfectly optimal to the one-sixth of elves who undoubtedly have their highest stat in strength.

 

[Hriston]

Huh. In 28 years of playing — including mostly with folks introduced to gaming with 3e, 4e, or RIFTS, I've literally never encountered anyone choose stats first versus race/class/concept, short of the few times that we've rolled every piece of the character randomly for fun. The idea of optimizing to THAT degree is just…alien…

I didn't mean that assigning scores comes as the first step. Of course character concept is coming first, ability scores are generated randomly or an array is chosen, and then they are assigned to best serve the class, often by taking advantage of racial bonuses. It's in the act of assigning the scores, I think, that the tension arises between race concept and character concept. Real elves aren't built like that.

 

[Paraxis]

Why not just go with no bonuses to attributes? I'd probably change the point buy and the default array a bit so that folks could start with a 16 rather than 15 being the max. It's slightly lower power curve than regular 5e, but not by much. And there's no worry about X character concept being weaker than Y character concept just because someone wanted to be race A and not race B.

This is the best solution, no bonuses just more point buy/higher array. It lets people be any concept they want, you will see more gnome barbarians, half-orc spell casters, and everything in between. Race will give you some nice benefits but not pigeon hole people into stereotypes and tropes.

 

[Skyscraper]

I had a thread running here a while ago, about character generation and random race selection and random ability score generation. I think that a lot of the problems arise from the fact that you can pick what race you play Indeed, I have my players roll their race, and then roll their ability scores and they get what they get in the order that they are rolled. Haha, I know, heresy

After, you pick your class. Now, you might well assign your ability score bonuses, if you have some flexibility, knowing what class you'll now be going for. But that's fine.

This idea actually comes from Dungeon Crawl Classics (DCC) where you roll for everything except alignment, your name, and your class (that you choose after levelling up once).

This is actually a lot of fun. Players do not get to pick their race and do a character concept that they have in mind; but you know what? They roll with it. They come up with their character concept after they roll for race and abilities. "Let's see what nature gave me..."

My entire character generation method is as follows:

1) You are born: Roll for race.
2) Natural selection: roll two ability score arrays: each has 3d6 six times assigned in the order they are rolled. Pick the one you like best. (Perhaps you had a brother that died, or lived but never made it as an adventurer?)
3) training: change one ability score of your choice to 14
4) nobody's perfect (and those that are, pay for it): if you don't have at least one score of 7 or less, or two scores of 9 or less: lower one ability score to 6 or less. (Perhaps you had an accident?)
5) pick your class

Makes for a slightly more gritty and variable method. Some characters are weaker, some are stronger. My games are a lot about role-play, typically with 1-2 battles in a given session, so honestly PCs that suck in their ability scores have ample space to shine in-game. Weak characters are often the center of attention for some reason.