Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="osmanb" data-source="post: 4294887" data-attributes="member: 2004">Hello!Yes. I really like 4e. Blah, blah, blah. Anyways, one issue that has come up in a few threads (and my group has discussed) is the issue of racial ability score modifiers. In particular, there is the problem as it relates to classes. Because of the important of stats (and pairs of stats) for most classes, and the strange disconnect between races and classes, there are lots of restrictions on what pairings make for good PCs. Clearly, this is somewhat intended, but I think it's overdone. I want the PCs to have some freedom to mix and match races and classes. So, my proposed system:Every (non-human) race has a list of three ability scores. PCs created using that race may receive +2 to any two of those three scores. The triplets are:Dragonborn: Str/Con/ChaDwarf: Str/Con/WisEladrin: Str/Dex/IntElf: Str/Dex/Wis1/2 Elf: Con/Wis/ChaHalfling: Dex/Int/ChaTiefling: Con/Int/ChaWe tried to keep them thematically appropriate as much as possible, with some concessions. (eg, Elves getting strength is justified by the older concepts of wood elves). Also, this all clearly pre-supposes that optimized character builds (with bumps to the stats being used for powers) are important enough to warrant such a change. That might not be true, and I'm open to the idea that I'm over-reacting.Anyways, this clearly makes all of these races slightly better. So Humans need something to compensate. The current best idea on how to do that is to give them an extra racial feature ('Human luck?'), that gives a flat +1 to attack rolls. Very powerful, but not (I don't think) unbalancing.Overall, I like the system, because I don't like the current straight-jacket pairings of race and class. But I'm curious if people have feedback, or if we've overlooked something obvious. (Is it easily exploitable in some way?)Has anyone else tried something similar (or different) to address the problem?</blockquote>

Verification