Racial abilities & stereotypes.

[Tallifer]

Bonuses, feats and powers are all right.

Penalties and small-size weapon damage and penalties for using normal weapons are not cool.

 

[Kzach]

Perhaps a better way to achieve the original effect would be maximum and minimum stats. So instead of an elf getting +2 Dex, you would be unable to play an elf unless you put at least a 12 in Dexterity, say. I'm assuming a point buy system.

<- Old school.

Hmm, I never considered that but I have to say, I wouldn't mind that as a system. It solves a lot of the problems I have with a bonus/penalty system and also the problem that even with a bonus/penalty system, you can end up with a character significantly outside the norms for the race, but doing so comes with a significant disadvantage to the player. By simply saying that you have to have minimums and maximums, a player can work within those guidelines without being overly penalised or limited.

See, now that's why I make threads like this; because I never would've thought of this by myself

 

[GX.Sigma]

Perhaps a better way to achieve the original effect would be maximum and minimum stats. So instead of an elf getting +2 Dex, you would be unable to play an elf unless you put at least a 12 in Dexterity, say. I'm assuming a point buy system.

<- Old school.

That makes a lot of sense, but I don't think that works as well as +1/-1, as it rigidly enforces stereotype, whereas with +1/-1 you can (if Elf) put a 6 into Dex and a 17 into Con, and still end up with a low Dex and a high Con.

 

[am181d]

I think the best system is a small bonus (say a +1) for race in 1 or 2 stats, and some fluff about what the race tends to be good or bad at.

Players should be able to play clumsy elves, charismatic half-orcs, and burly halflings, and they shouldn't automatically win D&D if they decide to play a half-orc barbarian.

If you want to distinguish races in a more substantial way, provide racial abilities that PROVIDE options, but don't close off options.

 

[Kzach]

If you want to distinguish races in a more substantial way, provide racial abilities that PROVIDE options, but don't close off options.

Hence why I feel that the options are better represented through mechanics other than ability bonuses and penalties.

Having a minimum and maximum (in a point-buy system like what we have in 4e) is a much better solution because it doesn't penalise a player for their choices but rather limits them to more applicable ones.

Say for instance that you've got a point-buy system like 4e's but you use two different methods to create the same basic character. One method says that a halfling can't have a Strength above 16 and can't have a Dexterity below 12. The other system says that you have a +2 to Dexterity but a -2 to Strength. The player wants to make a dragon sorcerer (Charisma primary, Strength secondary).

System One

The character could have a 16 Strength, 16 Charisma and 12 Con and Dex.

System Two

The character would be limited to a 14 Strength, 16 Charisma and 12 Con... but hey, they'd get to have a 14 Dex so it's all good, right?

System One gives you a viable character whereas System Two essentially forces you away from such a character choice.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I have no problem with the way that racial modifiers are done in 3.5E or Pathfinder. Race should matter.

Or 4E, for that matter. I'm fine with a mix of approaches.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If there's a biological average or ability, I'd like it represented somehow. Ability bonuses are one very good tool, but so are feats, traits, skill bonuses or inclinations, etc. The tools used should be varied, too.

I do hope humans get a bonus to Intelligence, finally. They've been "the most adaptable" D&D race for a while, now. Intelligence is supposed to represent that to some degree, I think, so bump a human ability score by 1. Just my opinion. As always, play what you like

 

[hafrogman]

I do hope humans get a bonus to Intelligence, finally. They've been "the most adaptable" D&D race for a while, now. Intelligence is supposed to represent that to some degree, I think, so bump a human ability score by 1. Just my opinion. As always, play what you like

There was a thread about this a while back (possibly started by you?). But there's one central problem, which is that humanity defines the average ability scores. 3-18 is meaningless in a vacuum. 10.5 is human average. Your average human can't be smarter than average, it would just change what average meant.

Humans aren't tall, strong and clumsy, that's just how halflings see us. To them, they're average and we're the freaks.

So I don't think humans should have a set ability score modifier. If you want to model this, you'd have to instead give a -1 intelligence penalty to all the other races . . . and I bet that'd be a lot harder to get off the ground.

 

[RHGreen]

The following isn't a dig at the OP's post, but a dig at (creativity = do whatever random thing)

I know I'm a bit grumpy, but I've never really understood playing against type. I can understand playing with a base concept a little, but outright going against that base doesn't make any sense to me.


I'll illustrate.

DM: "What race do you want to play?"

Player: "A Dwarf."

DM: "Okay. Typically, dwarves are short, stocky and resilient. They are inherently resistant to magic and poison. They like to drink alcohol a lot. Distrust elves due to their mutual history. Favour axes and hammers. Are great crafters in metal and stone and covet precious metals and gems. They live in underground complexes."

Player: "No, not that. I want to live in the woods and use a bow. I don't want to be short and stocky, I want to be thin and over five feet tall and fair of face and all light and wafey. I want to be good with magic and love music and craft things in wood. I want to get on really well with wild animals and elves."

DM: "Oh, you want to be an elf. Sorry, I thought you said dwarf."

Player: "No. I want to be a frikkin dwarf!"

DM: "WTF"


If you a play a dwarf that has been changed to be nothing like a dwarf then it isn't a dwarf - so why be a dwarf? Be a good something else rather than a bad dwarf. I don't get this teenage angst 'I try so hard to be an individual so I end up looking like everyone else' issue with messing so much with what are poked at as clichés that everything turns into a incoherent theme park designed by a schizophrenic on an acid trip.

Creativity isn't necessarily stunted by restrictions. Creativity isn't necessarily freed and nurtured by limitless possibilities.

My perfect example of this is John Carpenter. When he started, he barely had a budget. During those times he created some of my favourite films. Halloween, The Fog, The Thing, Escape From New York. He really had to work to make any of those films look good at all. He got famous, well funded, and found CGI. The universe was his canvas. He could do anything.

So what did he do - Village of the Damned remake, Escape from LA, Vampires, and Ghosts of Mars. I wonder if he's good friends with George Lucas.


Anything you see or hear that has any artistic merit has been created within certain boundaries and limitations - voluntarily or through necessity. If a person throws random crap at a canvas, more often than not they will end up with a canvas covered in crap.

 

[Kzach]

I'll illustrate.

Providing extreme examples to illustrate a point can be done by either side of an argument but does not prove either point.