D&D 5E Racial Minimum Stats?

[CAFRedblade]

I was just reading the "Lets read Basic Set" thread, I noted that Dwarves must have a minimum of 9 in Con.

2nd ed and up have either applied Bonus/Penalties (or just bonuses) to help distinguish races. But what if in DNDNext, this was distinguished by a required minimum in their racial stat?

Thoughts.

I know that some might want to play with things out of the norm for races, but if a dwarves are known for strong Con, why not a minimum requirement of 10 or 11 in their stat.
This in replacement (Optional perhaps) for a bonus/penalty system.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The one advantage of this way of thinking is that it eliminates all the arguments on the "high end" of the ability score scale. Current arguments against the DDN ability bonuses is that since the Human gets +1 to all six scores and another +1 to any one (thereby giving one score a +2)... it infers to us all that the smartest Human is always smarter than the smartest Elf, and the healthiest Human is always healthier than the healthiest Dwarf, etc. Which means Elves, Dwarves etc. are indeed not more of any ability compared to a baseline (which traditionally was the Human), and indeed are now less than Human.

By setting minimums for ability scores for the other races... it basically reverses that. It tells us that even the least healthy Dwarf is always healthier than the least healthy of any other race. Which therein makes a lot of sense. Now granted, because there are no bonuses to scores... the healthiest of any race is equal to every other race, so the pinnacle of Dwarven constitution is on par with the pinnacle of Human, Elven, Halfling etc... but that's perhaps slightly more acceptable to players? The Dwarven people on average have higher constitutions than every other race (just based on how a point buy arrangement would have to work out because CON could never be the Dwarf's dump stat.) But at the pinnacle of achievement, all races reach the 99% and at that level you really can't split the hairs between the individual races.

 

[TerraDave]

As an aside, 1E had mins, maxs, and the +/-

so an elf had +1 to dex, -1 to con and needed to have

Strength 3/18
Dexterity 7/19
Constitution 8/17
Intelligence 8/18
Wisdom 3/18
Charisma 8/18

I think 2E was the same.

(also, I like this approach, though the mins need to reflect how char gen is done).

 

[delericho]

In a random-roll system, bonuses and penalties are better than fixed minimum and maximum values. Because those fixed numbers may well mean that a player just doesn't get to play the race (or class) he wants simply because of what the dice say. (Sure, if the minimum/maximums are reasonable it's highly unlikely the player won't get his choice... but it's possible.)

In a point-buy system, both bonuses and minimum values are largely pointless - if the player wants his character to be very tough he can simply assign a high Con. And that applies whether he's playing a dwarf and wants to emphasise the racial toughness, or if he's playing an elf and wants to play against type.

 

[Sunseeker]

If we are using an array, or some variant system where your scores are pre-chosen, you just get to place them, I don't mind minimums.

However, I would generally just prefer to see players being able to choose whatever race they wanted to play and likewise play whatever class they wanted, before GM table rulings.

 

[Alzrius]

Because those fixed numbers may well mean that a player just doesn't get to play the race (or class) he wants simply because of what the dice say. (Sure, if the minimum/maximums are reasonable it's highly unlikely the player won't get his choice... but it's possible.)

I suspect that I'm in the minority here, but I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. There's something to be said for the idea that the game begins at character creation, rather than the first adventure, and that modifying your original idea based on the constraints placed upon you by dealing with race/class minimums (and maximums) can actually be fun, rather than frustrating.

 

[Kobold Stew]

In a random-roll system, bonuses and penalties are better than fixed minimum and maximum values. Because those fixed numbers may well mean that a player just doesn't get to play the race (or class) he wants simply because of what the dice say. (Sure, if the minimum/maximums are reasonable it's highly unlikely the player won't get his choice... but it's possible.)

In a point-buy system, both bonuses and minimum values are largely pointless - if the player wants his character to be very tough he can simply assign a high Con. And that applies whether he's playing a dwarf and wants to emphasise the racial toughness, or if he's playing an elf and wants to play against type.

I'm not sure this actually constrains racial minimum/maximum scores though, does it?

If your table has a system where you can't swap scores (you roll Strength, then Dex, etc. and they can't move), then the player does not have choice over what class they can effectively play (if I roll a 5 Int, I'm not going to be a Wizard). Adding racial min/max provides an additional constraint, but does not change the realities (unless you want to support 5 Int Wizards etc specifically, and you as a DM would be unwilling to allow re-rolls or other accomodation).

I have never played at such a table. I've played the straight 3d6-across-the-board, and in those cases it's always assumed you choose character and race in light of those results. More usually, its point buy or array or 4d6-drop-lowest and assign at will, none of which are closing off player choice.

Am I missing something here? I really don't see the min/max system as actually constraining in a meaningful way.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think racial minimums and maximums for the 1e AD&D classes are a bit too harsh. Demi-humans probably cover most of the full expanse of the 3-18 human norms those rolls are expressing. What really deserves such limitations are non-humanoid player races. Races like white dragon, ogre, pixie, or even flumph. They don't span the full 3-18 in all six Ability Scores nor should we try and make them.

 

[delericho]

I suspect that I'm in the minority here, but I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. There's something to be said for the idea that the game begins at character creation, rather than the first adventure, and that modifying your original idea based on the constraints placed upon you by dealing with race/class minimums (and maximums) can actually be fun, rather than frustrating.

We played 2nd Edition like that, and my experience is that it's a lot more fun in principle than in practice. Granted, we never saw a race get blocked off by bad rolls, but we did see a character miss out on a preferred class by one point. We played on, but I can't claim the campaign was more fun as a result.

YMMV, of course.

I'm not sure this actually constrains racial minimum/maximum scores though, does it?

If your table has a system where you can't swap scores (you roll Strength, then Dex, etc. and they can't move), then the player does not have choice over what class they can effectively play (if I roll a 5 Int, I'm not going to be a Wizard). Adding racial min/max provides an additional constraint, but does not change the realities

Well, it does depend on how stringent those requirements are, of course.

But bear in mind that it's seldom actually enough to meet the bare minimums to play a race/class combination (unless it's a 2nd Ed Ranger, of course ) - the character also has to be playable. So if you have to use all your 'good' rolls to qualify for your preferred race, that may leave you with the bare minimum Int 9 for your Wizard class. And while that is a playable character, it's likely you would have more fun if the rules gave you a bit of freedom.

(unless you want to support 5 Int Wizards etc specifically, and you as a DM would be unwilling to allow re-rolls or other accomodation).

A good system really shouldn't need that sort of stretching to make it work. If the game is going to impose minimum requirements for particular race/class combinations, then it has to be accepted that some players simply won't roll well enough to play those combinations. If that isn't acceptable (or even if it just isn't desirable), the game should do something else.

(One last thing: such requirements could of course be an optional rule in the game. I of course have no objections to that - just please not as the assumed default.)

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'm against this. It's adds a layer of complexity for basically no reason.