Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Opinions on Racial Ability Modifiers
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Khaalis" data-source="post: 5829039" data-attributes="member: 2167"><p>Other.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>For instance, dwarves.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Personally, I like how <em>Fantasy Craft</em> 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Khaalis, post: 5829039, member: 2167"] 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 [i]Fantasy Craft[/i] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Opinions on Racial Ability Modifiers
Top