Opinions on Racial Ability Modifiers

[Lanefan]

Other: bonuses and penalties but expressed as a skewing of the 3-18 bell curve for each stat for each race.

Example: you roll 10 for Strength. You roll or choose Dwarf as your race. Dwarves' Strength bell curve is an 8-18 range, so your 10 becomes 13.
Continued example: same character, you roll 15 for Dex. Dwarves' Dex. range only goes from 3-16, so your 15 drops to 14.

Advantage: stats close to the extreme don't get modified as much - a natural 18 is probably going to stay at 18 (a few races have ranges that go to 19 e.g. Elf Dex.) - as they do with a straight + or - modifier.

Lanefan

 

[Frostmarrow]

I want 18 to be max so I think characters of certain races, at character creation, should have a requirement when assigning ability scores.

Dwarf: Con must be higher than Dex
Elf: Dex must be higher than Con
Eladrin: Int must be higher than Con
Halfling: Dex must be higher than Str
Half-elf: Cha must be higher than ...


As a character gains levels and increases ability scores this requirement is no longer mandatory, so a dwarf could end up with decemt Dex after all.

 

[TwinBahamut]

If it's expressed in other ways, one of those must be a bonus on strength checks so that they can break out of ropes, arm wrestle, or open stuck doors more easily. But in that case, why not just make it an ability score bonus?

For a number of reasons, but combat related ones are some of the most important.

I mean, let's look at one of the most important uses of a Strength score bonus in D&D: swinging a sword. A sword owned by a giant who is twice as tall as a person would weigh eight times as much as a normal sword. With his twice-normal strength, a giant would simply not be able to swing it as effectively as a normal person would. Sure, it would hit really hard (reflected by the weapon's increased base damage), but the giant would not have anywhere near the same degree of control over the weapon. Since control over the weapon is one of the key reasons Strength bonuses improve the accuracy of melee attacks, it means the increased size decreases melee accuracy, rather than increase it. Which means a size penalty to accuracy reflects the change better than a strength bonus to accuracy would.

 

[was]

I like the idea of no benefits or penalties for any race.

 

[dangerous jack]

Also, on a purely physical standpoint it is unnecessary. Generally speaking, creatures don't get stronger as they grow bigger, they grow weaker. According to basic math and physics, if you double a creature's height you double its muscular strength and quadruple its bone strength, but its mass is increased by eight times.

Close. You have the right idea, but your numbers are wrong. Strength (measured as power or force) is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the muscle (and only when you assume the number of sarcomeres per unit area is constant). Doubling a creature's size in all dimensions will increase mass by 8x, and muscular strength by 4x. (I studied Biomechanics in university).

So if you take a 4' tall halfling's strength as X & weight 65lbs., then a 6' tall comparable human would have strength 2.25X and weight ~220lbs.

If the 3-18 bell curve is meant to represent human limits, why would the same bell curve represent halfling limits? Should the strongest human be no stronger than the strongest halfling? And if you don't penalize a halfling's strength, why do you give a bonus to strength for a goliath? How about a giant?

So I'm for bigger ability bonuses and penalties than they've ever done before. But that comes with the caveat that if they continue to make combat dependent on a single ability score, then I wouldn't want any bonus or penalty at all. Because at that point it's not really strength or dexterity or anything that the ability scores are actually measuring... it's class effectiveness.

 

[howandwhy99]

Ability Scores - I like minimums and maximums. 3 & 18 are the human limitations (though higher ends have been extended out before, like 18/00) The game focuses on the human norm, so overlap other races with the above. Anything too high or low means adventuring will change significantly as will play for the player.

Height - 3' average Halflings, 4' dwarves, 5' elves, and 6' humans IIRC. Lots of room for other races too. Again, size here could quickly get out of bounds.

Weight - This was coin or mass previously, but the same kind of ideas apply as to height.

Movement - with combat this really means relatively similar races. I think the doubling top and bottom limit aren't too bad unless we want to encourage lots of dividing the party.

Aging - This one is tougher, especially if age and aging are going to matter in the game. Not many want a race that lasts a week, but variety can be added here. Immortality (without invincibility) should be analyzed too with its repercussions. Age or health used to be a resource.

Sex/Gender - 2, 1, more? None? It goes to procreation and the continuation and origin of the race. Like certain kinds of violence, this one may intrude more often into ethical issues though.

Alignment - This is another stat to be played, so I'm against limiting it by race. I guess it could have a common starting point for a race, but being able to even change that wholescale is more interesting when left in the game IMO.

Languages - the default is each race has a language and many divided races may have several like humans do. Multiple races sharing a single default language or racial language could be interesting. We're talking about origins here again.

Natural Armor - could be interesting, but this moves directly to combat classes as an advantage. Which leads to...

Okay, every other kind of cultural or physiological differentiation normally called Racial Ability. Find secret doors, bonuses to special weapon attacks, hiding benefits, far seeing, impaired hearing, etc.

All of this stuff needs to carefully be judged with an eye towards whether or not it advantages one class or another. I believe the original races are really set up to particular advantages in common non-class specific exploration, and NOT CLASS advantages. None was better at any class out of the gate because of their racial abilities. These were always separate, and if they were judged as racial abilities then they were cultural and learned ones. Meaning they were racial classes and probably the core classes when relevant. Lion-men became better fighters because they gained F-M experience and levels, Not because they were stronger on average (maybe a STR Min). A high STR helps, but it isn't what makes one more skilled as a fighter.

EDIT: Taboo stuff like skin color should be in there too. Though I think we're more likely to see red orcs, green goblins, and scaly lizard people more than anything commonly understood as racial prejudice. I think it's a testament that we can leave this stuff in the game, that we can have 3-headed salamander tripeds, without calls of prejudice which makes D&D races still a thrill.

 

[Hassassin]

I mean, let's look at one of the most important uses of a Strength score bonus in D&D: swinging a sword. A sword owned by a giant who is twice as tall as a person would weigh eight times as much as a normal sword. With his twice-normal strength, a giant would simply not be able to swing it as effectively as a normal person would.

Assuming your numbers are correct ([MENTION=23654]dangerous jack[/MENTION] disagrees), why would the giant use a 8x as heavy sword if it can't swing it? It could swing a 2x human weight one as easily as a human his own sized. In fact, that's what large monsters/characters in 3e do - large weapons are only twice as heavy as medium ones.

If 4x strength is more accurate, that means the giant can swing his 2x weight sword twice as easily as a human his sword.

 

[trancejeremy]

Things like giants are literally impossible - 7 1'2 feet is about as tall as a person can get without serious issues. (Look at poor Andre the Giant)

Therefore any system is likely going to break down well before that, at least if it is based on human norms.

The same goes for hobbits - in any real sense, they would be hopelessly weak. (And as an aside, Chimps are not that much stronger than humans, it's a myth. They're also bigger than you think about 5' and 150 lbs, more like dwarves than hobbits)

So all this stuff really has to be heavily abstracted anyway. That's one thing that really drove me crazy about 3e, having different weapon sizes for different size monsters. So much effort was spend in solving a problem that shouldn't even exist, since the system needs to be abstract, not realistic.

 

[Mercule]

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.

This is what I should have voted. I don't give a rip if the race get's a -1 for every +1. I just want each race to have appropriate differences from humans. That might mean some races get no stat adjustments, but some really wild "at-will" (or something). It might also mean that a race gets a huge stat bonus, no penalty, and no powers. Or something totally different.

That line of thought brings me to balance, though. How important is balance? What if you have a race like goliaths that has a net stat boost or break even and an awesome ability? The 3e option was to use a level adjustment. The 4e option was to take away/tone down the ability. I find the 4e way of handling it to be very, very unsatisfying. The 3e way had some glitches, too, though. The other options are the 1e way, where balance came from the GM, or just saying "sorry, you can't play that". Both of those have a certain amount of suck attached to them. The best of the above seems to be 3.5 w/ UA buy-offs, but there may be something else.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Close. You have the right idea, but your numbers are wrong. Strength (measured as power or force) is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the muscle (and only when you assume the number of sarcomeres per unit area is constant). Doubling a creature's size in all dimensions will increase mass by 8x, and muscular strength by 4x. (I studied Biomechanics in university).

So if you take a 4' tall halfling's strength as X & weight 65lbs., then a 6' tall comparable human would have strength 2.25X and weight ~220lbs.

My mistake then. I knew it was far short of the cubing of mass, but I guess I got it wrong about how much it did increase. I was fairly sure that it was different than bone strength, though, so is bone the one that only doubles?

Of course, this is only talking about direct muscle power, which is a bit different from effective strength because of all the other factors...

If the 3-18 bell curve is meant to represent human limits, why would the same bell curve represent halfling limits? Should the strongest human be no stronger than the strongest halfling? And if you don't penalize a halfling's strength, why do you give a bonus to strength for a goliath? How about a giant?

So I'm for bigger ability bonuses and penalties than they've ever done before. But that comes with the caveat that if they continue to make combat dependent on a single ability score, then I wouldn't want any bonus or penalty at all. Because at that point it's not really strength or dexterity or anything that the ability scores are actually measuring... it's class effectiveness.

I'm more of the opinion that the game should move away from the idea that ability scores, particularly strength, shouldn't be treated as absolute empirical measurements. They should be relative quantities that admit that they are rough abstractions designed to differentiate characters. In other words, it is not a problem to say that a halfling and a human both have the same general Strength Score range, even if the range of weight they can bench press is totally different. The reason for this is because Strength is an abstract quantity created for game purposes, not an absolute measure of a single, easily-identified physical characteristic. It exists to make distinctions between individual characters, not model physics.

Hmm, not sure if I'm explaining this correctly or just rambling, so maybe I'll explain my views a different way... Let's look at a different stat that makes this distinction a bit clearer. Dexterity is a good choice.

Dexterity is a vaguely defined abstraction. It folds lots of totally different qualities, such as manual dexterity, flexibility, balance, reaction speed, and so on. It is pretty much impossible to come up with some system that measures it in an empirical way, especially since many of those qualities have very little to do with each other. Saying that a small creature should be more dexterous, while a large creature should be less dexterous, only makes sense for some of those ideas, but not others. Ability scores don't measure real physical qualities, so it is fine if they don't increase and decrease directly with real physical qualities. A halfling and a giant having the same strength score is perfectly acceptable within the level of abstraction provided by the ability score system.

Assuming your numbers are correct ([MENTION=23654]dangerous jack[/MENTION] disagrees), why would the giant use a 8x as heavy sword if it can't swing it? It could swing a 2x human weight one as easily as a human his own sized. In fact, that's what large monsters/characters in 3e do - large weapons are only twice as heavy as medium ones.

If 4x strength is more accurate, that means the giant can swing his 2x weight sword twice as easily as a human his sword.

Well, this last statement you make isn't really true, for two reasons. First, the giant has to account for the increased mass of his own body and arm when swinging a sword, so it is impossible to swing "twice" as easily with a double-weight sword because his heavy arm would slow the sword down. Second, the change in leverage because of his longer arm further decreases the effective strength of his muscles (the human arm is a very inefficient lever, and gets less efficient the longer it is), dropping it even further.

Simply put, the idea of "strength" is an abstract quality with a huge number of physical principles all colliding within it. For every factor you take into account there are two more affecting the situation that you don't. That's why oversimplistic approaches like "things get stronger when they get bigger!" are not the best basis for game rules. It's best to just accept the abstraction for what it is and not think about it too much.

If you interpret ability scores as anything but the coarsest of abstractions, then even the idea of humans having a physical or mental ability range as wide as the 3-18 gulf becomes silly. Especially when a difference of merely 2 is the difference between human and halfling bench-pressing ability. If the total difference between humans and halfings is less than the difference between two random humans, then why do we need to differentiate races with stats at all?

I suppose it is a bit weird that I got involved in this whole physics-based discussion considering that is my opinion, but there it is.