D&D 5E Reimagining racial ability scores

[TheCosmicKid]

Just spitballing here:

Scrap bonuses but limit how players assign ability scores. E.g.: for hill dwarves Constitution must be at least third-highest at character creation and Wisdom can't be lowest.

Or just floor them. E.g.: hill dwarf Constitution must be at least 13 and Wisdom must be at least 10.

Probably the former is better for rolled scores and the latter for point but.

This effectively changes the "dwarves are tough" archetype from a bonus to a restriction. Not a big restriction, because you still end up with an array that a human could have received, so it shouldn't be considered a negative to be balanced against. (I.e., if humans' only feature is that they don't have any such restrictions, that's not gonna fly.) But it also lets players put their highest score in Dexterity and play a rogue without feeling like they have to go elf or halfling, and still ensures that dwarf rogues are gonna be, on average, pretty tough rogues.

 

[Coroc]

The only beef I have with standard 5e is that mountain dwarves get +2 str, they should not have better possible starting str than humans and only get +1. (For halforcs +2 str is ok though imho).

I (being a fan of the 3e bonus-malus attribute system) have accepted, that for 5e with its bound accuracy it is better to have this abstract attribute system in that a Halfling can as well as an halforc acquire 20 str .

The mechanics and math behind it simply require this approach, so every attempt to fit in principles of former editions, be it giving a lower and higher starting attribute, be it putting the limits to e.g. Halfling max str 18 therefore dex 22, are quite pointless.

 

[oreofox]

Personally, I like the idea of divesting ability score bonuses away from races, since it encourages people to create characters that are less common in the current system. I like the idea of fighter gnomes and elven barbarians and goliath wizards. I don't know that I would want to see racial caps on ability scores though. For one, it creates the same pressures to pick race/class combos that currently exist. Secondly, unless you play in grittier or more "grounded" games, the player characters should be superior to others of their kind. Average gnomes would be far weaker than half-orcs, and elves far more graceful than goliaths. But I don't think those same standards and expectations should apply to the literal heroes of the story. But that's just my take and how my table rolls.

I mentioned doing something similar, because I didn't like every single rogue being a halfling, or elf archers, half-orc barbarians, etc. I got flack by someone saying "the PCs will just pick the racial traits (stuff like stonecunning, gnome spell resistance, elf extra cantrip, etc) instead of what gives them the best +2".

My games, I removed the +2 from races, placing them onto the classes when chosen at level 1. Races give a +1 to a score of a player's choice. You want to play a dwarf cleric or halfling rogue? Go for it. You can make that goliath rogue and be just as "viable" as that halfling rogue, since they'd both get +2 to Dexterity (or Intelligence, since classes give a +2 to one of two scores, typically a saving throw proficiency).

As for score caps, I reduced everything for everyone to 18. I am not a fan of giving races variable stat caps (20 dex for halflings, 20 con for dwarves, 16 str for gnomes), as that just goes back to having the races give a +2 to a specific ability score and all you'd see is halfling rogues* and tiefling warlocks, again.

*Darn you dnd4vr! But thanks for catching the mistake.

 

[DND_Reborn]

{snip}

As for score caps, I reduced everything for everyone to 18. I am not a fan of giving races variable stat caps (20 dex for halflings, 20 con for dwarves, 16 str for gnomes), as that just goes back to having the races give a +2 to a specific ability score and all you'd see is halfling gnomes and tiefling warlocks, again.

Whatever limits you use, I definitely do NOT want to run into one of these!!!

 

[Coroc]

I mentioned doing something similar, because I didn't like every single rogue being a halfling, or elf archers, half-orc barbarians, etc. I got flack by someone saying "the PCs will just pick the racial traits (stuff like stonecunning, gnome spell resistance, elf extra cantrip, etc) instead of what gives them the best +2".

My games, I removed the +2 from races, placing them onto the classes when chosen at level 1. Races give a +1 to a score of a player's choice. You want to play a dwarf cleric or halfling rogue? Go for it. You can make that goliath rogue and be just as "viable" as that halfling rogue, since they'd both get +2 to Dexterity (or Intelligence, since classes give a +2 to one of two scores, typically a saving throw proficiency).

As for score caps, I reduced everything for everyone to 18. I am not a fan of giving races variable stat caps (20 dex for halflings, 20 con for dwarves, 16 str for gnomes), as that just goes back to having the races give a +2 to a specific ability score and all you'd see is halfling rogues* and tiefling warlocks, again.

*Darn you dnd4vr! But thanks for catching the mistake.

Well then it also comes down to personal taste, I like archetypes. Heck, even the class system is a kind of archetyping. My players mostly prefer to play humans anyway. I would love them to do some Halfling rogu dwarven warrior elf wizard human cleric party once in a while, but they do not do it
And tiefling warlock harmonizes good as well as human warlock, but elf? if you do not have fairy queen in your setting as a potential patron then an elf warlock sounds pretty awkward to me.
A dwarven warlock / wizard / sorcerer? Ugh, play the game like you want to so do I, it does not and will not exist at my table except maybe if I dm Eberron, there I might allow it, because it is part of the design.

 

[delph]

I mentioned doing something similar, because I didn't like every single rogue being a halfling, or elf archers, half-orc barbarians, etc. I got flack by someone saying "the PCs will just pick the racial traits (stuff like stonecunning, gnome spell resistance, elf extra cantrip, etc) instead of what gives them the best +2".

My games, I removed the +2 from races, placing them onto the classes when chosen at level 1. Races give a +1 to a score of a player's choice. You want to play a dwarf cleric or halfling rogue? Go for it. You can make that goliath rogue and be just as "viable" as that halfling rogue, since they'd both get +2 to Dexterity (or Intelligence, since classes give a +2 to one of two scores, typically a saving throw proficiency).

As for score caps, I reduced everything for everyone to 18. I am not a fan of giving races variable stat caps (20 dex for halflings, 20 con for dwarves, 16 str for gnomes), as that just goes back to having the races give a +2 to a specific ability score and all you'd see is halfling rogues* and tiefling warlocks, again.

*Darn you dnd4vr! But thanks for catching the mistake.

Thatswhy I said I'd like idea of ability score improvment by Class. You will take +2 (or +3) and every one class will have described where you can put it. As save throws or skills...

and story behind it coudbe "you was trained in this abilities by training this class" and it will have some good impact to some "not logical" multiclass... As I read many times "take 1 lvl something to get this and this and then continue in this class. So every one take race good for "second class"