D&D 5E Racial Ability Score Mods

[Minigiant]

I'm wondering.
Would this be balanced.

(Optional) At the first level, you may take a racial ability score penalty penalty to gain a feat. The feat you choose cannot grant a bonus to any ability score you have a penalty in.

Dwarf: -1 Dex, -1 Cha
Elf: -2 Con
Halfling: -2 Str
Human: N/A

Dragonborn: -2 Dex
Gnome: -1 Str, -1 Wis
Half Elf: N/A
Half Orc: N/A (-2 Int is too weak)
Tielfling: N/A

Aasimar (DMG): N/A
Changeling (UA:E): -1 Str, -1 Con
Shifter (UA:E): N/A
Warforged (UA:E): N/A

 

[Sunseeker]

It's a side effect, but whether it is a problem is a matter of opinion. I generally prefer rules that reflect the setting, and don't care if playing off-type is viable. I'm not alone in this, nor is my opinion universal.

I would personally like to see every race get a "variant racial traits", ala the human. A additional use of breath weapon per day, or added skill proficiencies or something else that's representative of the race without stepping on human toes and just giving them a free feat. Could certainly throw in optional racial penalties as well perhaps in addition to that additional effect:

IE: a little stat block like:
Variant racial traits:
Elves: -1 con and/or proficiency in Nature(wood)/Arcana(high)/etc...

I really would have liked 5th to have been made with fewer built-in-assumptions than previous editions.

 

[suden]

I'm wondering.
Would this be balanced.

(Optional) At the first level, you may take a racial ability score penalty penalty to gain a feat. The feat you choose cannot grant a bonus to any ability score you have a penalty in.

Dwarf: -1 Dex, -1 Cha
Elf: -2 Con
Halfling: -2 Str
Human: N/A

Dragonborn: -2 Dex
Gnome: -1 Str, -1 Wis
Half Elf: N/A
Half Orc: N/A (-2 Int is too weak)
Tielfling: N/A

Aasimar (DMG): N/A
Changeling (UA:E): -1 Str, -1 Con
Shifter (UA:E): N/A
Warforged (UA:E): N/A

The problem is an optimizer would match the penalty to irrelevant stats to basically get a feat for free. Building a dragonborn paladin? -2 dex means nothing to a plate class, so the feat is clearly a better deal. -2 str for a halfling? Unless you have a dm who rigorously enforces encumbrance, it's meaningless. And even in that situation, it is eliminated by a bag of holding. On the flip side, elves lose out, -2 con is a serious penalty for any class and not a fair trade for a feat.

The game I am playing in right now, our tank is an unarmored wood elf barbarian. That is already a somewhat suboptimal choice compared to human (for the feat) or one of the +str classes, but not so suboptimal as to make it unplayable or a detriment to the group. And the player is having a blast, running around the battlefield with his wiry little elf, tanking cyclopes and doing it well. He never would have made an elf barbarian if it required a con penalty.

Of course, with your proposed system, a player could simply choose to not take the optional penalty with a feat, but since feats have been proven so strong, if you added the option most people would take it. Unless they wanted to play an elf.

A human has to give up four points in stats to take a feat. And at later levels, everyone has to give up two stat points to take a feat. I think if you wanted to add an option to allow a demi-human to pick up a feat at level 1, you should instead require them to give up all their racial stat bonuses. So if a half-orc wants to get a feat at level one, they don't get the +2 str or +1 con. That would still allow a lot of flexibility for class/race combos, but make players pay a real price if they want the extra feat.

 

[Minigiant]

The problem is an optimizer would match the penalty to irrelevant stats to basically get a feat for free. Building a dragonborn paladin? -2 dex means nothing to a plate class, so the feat is clearly a better deal. -2 str for a halfling? Unless you have a dm who rigorously enforces encumbrance, it's meaningless. And even in that situation, it is eliminated by a bag of holding. On the flip side, elves lose out, -2 con is a serious penalty for any class and not a fair trade for a feat.

-2 dex pretty much locks you out of most classes and -2 str gets you knocked around like a ragdoll.

But I get the point. But that was the issue back in the day. The Ability scores aren't equal for penalties.

The game I am playing in right now, our tank is an unarmored wood elf barbarian. That is already a somewhat suboptimal choice compared to human (for the feat) or one of the +str classes, but not so suboptimal as to make it unplayable or a detriment to the group. And the player is having a blast, running around the battlefield with his wiry little elf, tanking cyclopes and doing it well. He never would have made an elf barbarian if it required a con penalty.

Of course, with your proposed system, a player could simply choose to not take the optional penalty with a feat, but since feats have been proven so strong, if you added the option most people would take it. Unless they wanted to play an elf.

Well that's why I made it optional. But I get the point. But really, if you are using racial penalties, you are promoting stereotypes in the first place. Elves are archers, priests, and mages. Halflings are sneaky or ranged. Dragonborn are tanky.

A human has to give up four points in stats to take a feat. And at later levels, everyone has to give up two stat points to take a feat. I think if you wanted to add an option to allow a demi-human to pick up a feat at level 1, you should instead require them to give up all their racial stat bonuses. So if a half-orc wants to get a feat at level one, they don't get the +2 str or +1 con. That would still allow a lot of flexibility for class/race combos, but make players pay a real price if they want the extra feat.

That's too big a nerf. 75% of a races power is their racial bonus. Nixing that is not worth a feat.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm wondering.
Would this be balanced.

(Optional) At the first level, you may take a racial ability score penalty penalty to gain a feat. The feat you choose cannot grant a bonus to any ability score you have a penalty in.

No, it would not be even remotely balanced. A feat is balanced against a +2 bonus in your primary score. A feat is worth as much as +2 Dex for a rogue, or +2 Cha for a sorcerer. A feat is worth way more than +2 Str for either of them.

 

[Psikerlord#]

deleted!

 

[Psikerlord#]

It really depends on the edition. AD&D clearly stated that your stats had obvious inherent meaning, and anyone with a Strength of 18 or higher was not built like River Tam. Meanwhile, 4E clearly stated that the fluff is mutable and you can change any description you feel like, as long as the numbers stay the same.

There's no wrong way to play, but people have their preferences, and it usually helps to get a consensus on such things before you start the campaign.

Yeah I dont mind if a halfing has 18 str, but he/she will look like they do. You cant hide that kind of natural strength on 3' frame.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I'm currently working on races for my homebrew campaign and have decided, that the players gets a +1 and a +2 that they can place on stats of their choice, regardless of their race (we use standard array). I want them to play a dwarf because they want to play a dwarf, not because a dwarf gets stat boosts in a stat they need for their character concept. I haven't quite figured out how to handle humans yet, as we don't play with the feat variant and I probably want to give different cultures different traits.

I figure that while the racial stat bonuses are there to show the strengths of each race, that doesn't mean that every individual of that race conforms to those strengths and particularly not PCs.

Stolen! Yep I'm going to do this next game. The racial bonuses are usual, but the PCs are exceptions to the rule and might have increases elsewhere. So the players can choose their race as freely as their class. Looooove it!

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

I have been thinking about just allowing any race (except human) to have +2 to any stat, and +1 to another. Just for the PCs. So sure, almost all NPCs will follow the usual stat increases. But for the PCs they can put their bonuses where they like.

Anyone think this will cause issues?

That's what I am going to do, except I will let humans get the same bonus (we are not using the variant). I have made a few other modifications to humans to balance it out.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I have been thinking about just allowing any race (except human) to have +2 to any stat, and +1 to another. Just for the PCs. So sure, almost all NPCs will follow the usual stat increases. But for the PCs they can put their bonuses where they like.

Anyone think this will cause issues?

Not if you are using the Standard Array. If using random stat generation or a version of point buy that allows 17+, I would put a ceiling of 18 on non-standard attributes (for that race). For example, I would allow a starting Dwarf with a CON of 20, but not a CHA of 20.

That would still allow PCs to be adapted to the player's taste, without breaking the racial norms completely.

I think it's a great idea.