Making ability scores more about the character concept.

[Tony Vargas]

There is more to the game than just to-hit and damage rolls. And "every fighter has 20 str" is not a great world building.

But... Maybe you'd like something like...
To-hit: Wis+Cha+Dex
Damage: Str+Con+Int

Systems can and have gone there with reasonable results. Back in '78 RQI calculated your chance to hit with modifiers from high STR, SIZe, DEX, INT, & POWer. Everything but CON, IIRC.

FWIW, 5e BA has already tried to decrease the impact of high stats, both with the cap of 20, and putting everyone on the same proficiency schedule.

 

[BookBarbarian]

For me the race minimums are important.

An Orc should feel tough and brutish, and be naturally good at tough brutish classes.

If an Orc was fragile, it would feel abnormal, atypical.



If the races fail to feel different from each other. Then I would prefer to remove race from D&D. In that case, I would make it more like superhero games where race is an afterthought that a player may or may not want for flavor, after deciding what the hero can do.

I agree about how the orc should feel, but disagree with Ability minimums. You can make a race feel that way without effecting ability scores at all.

Take a Goliath's Stone's Endurance for example. even on a wizard a Goliath will feel tough by reducing 1d12 + Con bonus damage once per rest.

A Half orc will also feel strong with bigger crits, and tough when getting up from an attack that you'd have knocked anyone else out.

We have so much more room to explore with with the non-ability score improvement parts of the Races in ways that are much more interesting to me.

 

[Wiseblood]

I agree about how the orc should feel, but disagree with Ability minimums. You can make a race feel that way without effecting ability scores at all.

Take a Goliath's Stone's Endurance for example. even on a wizard a Goliath will feel tough by reducing 1d12 + Con bonus damage once per rest.

A Half orc will also feel strong with bigger crits, and tough when getting up from an attack that you'd have knocked anyone else out.

We have so much more room to explore with with the non-ability score improvement parts of the Races in ways that are much more interesting to me.

Yes, Especially if it fits with the usual theme for races. I have just come up with some that I like so much I won't share....yet. I feel like any racial ability or boon should be good or great initially but gradually be overshadowed by the character's other abilities unless they seek to actively improve them.

 

[ccs]

When was the last time you need to know the Str of a NPC?

Um, Sunday? In our PF game. Nearly every time a foe rolled a melee attack or rolled melee damage.
Before that it'd have been last Thur. in our 5e game. Again, melee attacks, melee damage, + str saves....

 

[Yaarel]

I agree about how the orc should feel, but disagree with Ability minimums. You can make a race feel that way without effecting ability scores at all.

Take a Goliath's Stone's Endurance for example. even on a wizard a Goliath will feel tough by reducing 1d12 + Con bonus damage once per rest.

A Half orc will also feel strong with bigger crits, and tough when getting up from an attack that you'd have knocked anyone else out.

We have so much more room to explore with with the non-ability score improvement parts of the Races in ways that are much more interesting to me.

If removing stats from race, then eliminate race from the character creation process.

For example, you can choose a feat at level 1 that says, ’Goliaths Stone Endurance’, the fluff says you have ‘Goliath heritage’. Done. No need for a race mechanic. Even in standard 5e, race is less meaningful a choice.

Make human the default (or whatever is appropriate for a particular setting). If a player wants a different race, then just fluff it up. Pick whatever mechanical option one wants, and call it whatever flavor one wants.

If race is mechanically meaningless, then who cares?

 

[Yaarel]

Take a Goliath's Stone's Endurance for example. even on a wizard a Goliath will feel tough by reducing 1d12 + Con bonus damage once per rest.

The thing about the *mechanic* of this feat is, its flavor is ambiguous. It might suggest stone-like toughness, hence an elemental giant heritage. Alternatively, it could mean witchy regeneration, and have no relation to the feeling of a giant.

The stats are the most palpable way of describing a creature.

 

[TwoSix]

If removing stats from race, then eliminate race from the character creation process.

For example, you can choose a feat at level 1 that says, ’Goliaths Stone Endurance’, the fluff says you have ‘Goliath heritage’. Done. No need for a race mechanic. Even in standard 5e, race is less meaningful a choice.

Make human the default (or whatever is appropriate for a particular setting). If a player wants a different race, then just fluff it up. Pick whatever mechanical option one wants, and call it whatever flavor one wants.

If race is mechanically meaningless, then who cares?

Can't say I meaningfully disagree with this, except for your first sentence. "Mechanically meaningful" and stats do not have to be synonymous. Race could be hugely mechanically impactful, giving out a bunch of useful abilities, without ever giving out a stat adjustment. I mean, look at class; it's the most mechanically meaningful choice you make in character creation, and it doesn't give out a stat bonus.

But I would have no problem if "race" was removed as a decision point, and turned into feats, or expanded backgrounds, or something similar.

The thing about the *mechanic* of this feat is, its flavor is ambiguous. It might suggest stone-like toughness, hence an elemental giant heritage. Alternatively, it could mean witchy regeneration, and have no relation to the feeling of a giant.

The stats are the most palpable way of describing a creature.

That sounds like a feature to me, not a bug!

 

[SkidAce]

Who's stopping you from any of these options?

Without reading the entire thread, this is what I was going to ask as well.

If the premise is the OP wants to emphasize certain things, then cool, debate away.

But the people I see gaming don't have that problem.

Two of the OPs examples of what we "dont" see are in our current play group, an int fighter and a cha cleric.

for what its worth...

 

[SkidAce]

For example. Remove race from D&D entirely.

Instead. Let level 1 pick any feat. Some (but not all) feats come with flavor such as ‘Elf ancestry’ or ‘Dragon bloodline’ to explain the ability.

Would they be an elf or not?

 

[BookBarbarian]

If removing stats from race

I'm not advocating for this, I'm not necessarily against it, but not advocating for it. What I prefer are Racial bonuses that aren't just numerical modifiers, but active or reactive abilities. Something that is easily more dynamic and varied.

then eliminate race from the character creation process.

For example, you can choose a feat at level 1 that says, ’Goliaths Stone Endurance’, the fluff says you have ‘Goliath heritage’. Done. No need for a race mechanic. Even in standard 5e, race is less meaningful a choice.

Make human the default (or whatever is appropriate for a particular setting). If a player wants a different race, then just fluff it up. Pick whatever mechanical option one wants, and call it whatever flavor one wants.

Meh. A culture you come from is a lovely part of a backstory. Calling it Race, Culture, Origin, or Ancestry, or even having it function more like a feat or Several feats wouldn't change much for me.

If race is mechanically meaningless, then who cares?

Not having Ability score bonuses or ability score minimums based on race does not equal mechanically meaningless. Not by a long-shot.