Opinions on Racial Ability Modifiers

[Hassassin]

I don't think every race must have ability score modifiers, but if races of significantly different sizes are playable their ability scores should be adjusted to match expectations.

I don't like having only bonuses, because that means humans will probably have to have some sort of adjustment as well - and that means the definition of ability scores (based on human limits) changes.

 

[Khaalis]

Other.

Ability bonuses and penalties should be on a case by case basis. I disagree with the "every race gets a +2 to 1 stat" or "every race gets +2 to 2 stats and a -2 to a 3rd" style mechanic. Attribute bonuses/penalties should BE a core racial feature, not an assumption. Additionally, just because one race gets a +2/-2 doesn't mean every race should.

For instance, dwarves.

Part of the problem with race design is that if you ask 5 people what a Dwarf should be mechanically, you'll likely get 5 different answers.

Dwarves are generally considered to be the hardiest and toughest of races. This might well grant them a bonus to CON if you want ALL the benefits of a high CON (saves, skills, HP, etc.). However, if you want to say that dwarves are no more hardy than humans when it comes to how much "punishment" than can take (i.e. HP) then you Don't give them a CON bonus but instead give them things like bonuses to saves vs, poison and disease and bonuses to CON skills.

On the flip side, a DEX penalty may just well apply based on everything in the description of the dwarven physiology. They are short, stout and bulky (basically living bolders in body shape) and it could be said that this automatically makes them much less agile if you want them to suffer penalties to everything DEX represents (defenses, saves, initiative, skills, etc.). Or you could instead make the penalty a penalty to all DEX-based skill checks, or just to DEX saves.

It is all a matter of how you look at the specifics of what you want a race to excel at, or be not so good at.

However, what I do not want to see is a return of the Max Attribute by Race table. It is a cumbersome and clunky way to limit Attributes, and it breaks logic when you have ways to raise attribute scores.


Personally, I like how Fantasy Craft did their species building tool. Every racial feature and attribute bonus has a set cost (there are also racial penalties that can be applied as well including stat penalties). All races are built with 7 point. Some races get 7 points of "racial features" while others get attributes and less abilities.

 

[Li Shenron]

Bonuses and penalties, as appropriate for the race concept and flavor.

They don't have to be perfectly balanced, but they have to be balaced enough to be PHB races.

If not balanced enough, they can still be playable races for more experienced players (-> move to DMG or supplements).

 

[Khaalis]

I don't think every race must have ability score modifiers, but if races of significantly different sizes are playable their ability scores should be adjusted to match expectations.

I don't like having only bonuses, because that means humans will probably have to have some sort of adjustment as well - and that means the definition of ability scores (based on human limits) changes.

Exactly. IMHO, the vast majority of Pechs/Halflings are just NOT as strong as most medium sized creatures, so I have no problem with them getting a -2 to STR. However, that doesn't mean that they can't get to that 18 STR by other means eventually (attribute training, magic gear, etc.).

However, "I" may also not see them as by default being all that Dexterous compared to others, just because they are smaller. Especially if you see pechs/halflings more along the Hobbit style rather than the later iterations of D&D's muscular, monk-like, mini-humans. Are they known to be good at certain larcenous pursuits? Usually. But that doesn't necessarily mean they should get a DEX bonus since not all halflings are quick to act, or particularly good at avoiding attacks, or balance, etc.


What I WOULD like to see for Humans, is what Fantasy Craft did. There is no single Human racial entry. Each human picks a "Talent" that makes up what kind of person they are. Things like: Adaptable, Agile, Charismatic, Crusading, Grizzled, etc.

 

[Wepwawet]

Other as well:
No ability modifiers but many racial features (by level if possible)
All kinds of flavourful options, that set the races clearly apart

 

[Hassassin]

It is all a matter of how you look at the specifics of what you want a race to excel at, or be not so good at.

Good points. For example, with regard to ability scores I could see:

Elves: +2 Dex, -2 Con (agile, but frail)
Dwarves: -2 Dex skills, +2 Con saves (hardy, but not very nimble)

The elves ability modifiers have a smaller (only +/- 1 modifier) but wider effect, since they affect all checks using those abilities. Dwarves' racial difference is larger but more specific.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I would also like to see more racial features and more that matter by level. As well as more flexibility in those features rather than making twenty different subraces.

However, I do think it's important to note that ability score penalties and bonuses are a no-brainer, much like a half-orc is.

Drawbacks are a huge part of what a character is and are fundamental to the game. Some characters should suck at some things. Halflings should be weak. Elves should be frail. Orcs should be fools. PF took a step backwards in this regard by mandating that everyone needed to have a net bonus. 4e took a huge step backwards by eliminating most of the penalties. All six ability scores should matter, so no penalty should be crippling or prohibitive to a basic concept, but penalties should exist and they should affect how you play.

 

[Grydan]

I would also like to see more racial features and more that matter by level. As well as more flexibility in those features rather than making twenty different subraces.

However, I do think it's important to note that ability score penalties and bonuses are a no-brainer, much like a half-orc is.

Drawbacks are a huge part of what a character is and are fundamental to the game. Some characters should suck at some things. Halflings should be weak. Elves should be frail. Orcs should be fools. PF took a step backwards in this regard by mandating that everyone needed to have a net bonus. 4e took a huge step backwards by eliminating most of the penalties. All six ability scores should matter, so no penalty should be crippling or prohibitive to a basic concept, but penalties should exist and they should affect how you play.

I disagree most emphatically.

Opportunity costs are great. You can't be the best at A, because you opted to be the best at B. However, you can be decent at A. Brilliant. Lovely.

Penalties suck. You can't be the best at A. You can't be decent at A. Because you liked something about the race, you must now suck at A.

Why should halfings have to be weak? Says who? Why? Smaller does not directly and proportionately correspond with weaker.

Why should elves be frail? Most elves I've read about in fantasy fiction aren't frail at all.

Why must orcs be fools? A brutal and savage bunch, to be sure, but why must they all be idiots? Who is harmed by the possibility of the Einstein of the Orcs?

 

[KidSnide]

I voted "other" as well. I don't want to see ability modifiers, but I want the racial abilities to be significant.

Ability modifiers mess up class/race variety. If you give one race a strength modifier (or worse, Str/Con or Str/Dex), that race because significantly more attractive for fighters, dramatically reducing the incentive to play a fighter with any other race. Players focus more on an optimal race/class combination and less on what makes sense for the campaign.

I don't mind a cantina-style party if that's what the campaign is about, but a cantina-style party shouldn't be the dominant, optimal party build for the system.

-KS

 

[Croesus]

I went for option 3 (no ability mods but minor racial features), but like TwinBahamut, I dispute the "minor" part of that. While I wouldn't go with his approach of having some really major racial traits, I don't think stonecutting, or things of that ilk, is really up to par.

Basically, at first level I think races should get the stuff that every member of the race gets - probably some skill modifiers, low-light vision if appropriate, and perhaps a minor power or two. Then, as you gain levels, your choice of race opens up the option to take dedicated racial feats and/or powers, and use dedicated racial items.

And that's basically it.

The reason for avoiding ability score modifiers is that these seem to immediately become the focus for choosing a race. Want to play a Fighter? Well, you best pick from these races, because otherwise you don't get that juicy Strength bonus. It has two deleterious effects, IMO: players choosing a given race solely for the ability mod (giving rise to the "humans with funny noses" thing); and there being a massive penalty for playing against type.

Since all of the proposed ability score generation methods allow for the player arranging his stats as desired, there is no need for ability mods - if you want your half-orc to be stronger than the average, just put a really high score in Strength!

Pretty much agree on all points.

No ability adjustments.
No "cultural" features.
Innate racial features, e.g., low light vision.

I'd also add: Lots of fluff that can be ignored if a GM wants the race to be different, but otherwise gives the player some handle on how the race should be RP'd. Even better, different fluff for each race, so GM's and players have a variety to choose from. Want Tolkien elves? Check. Want amoral, dominating elves ala Jhereg? Check. And so on...