D&D 5E Removal of class-based stat bonuses?

[overgeeked]

I get you could do this if you weaken the array.

15/14/13/12/10/8
to
14/13/13/12/10/8

Then you get +2 to your class' primary (+1/+1 if you are a hybrid class)

Or just don't let people double up.

Say a mountain dwarf has STR and CON as mod options. That character goes fighter so has STR and CON as mod options. One +2 bonus to each, not +4 to one. It's not that different than what's in game now. Most races have some version of +2/+1 plus other features. A few have something better, like variant humans and half-elves. So at worst you're giving more people an extra +1, at best you're opening things up and making any race viable for any class.

So your standard array:
15/14/13/12/10/8

You'd likely see 17 STR, 16 CON and the rest put wherever. Just like now. It wouldn't be that different in play, you'd just get there a slightly different way that would allow more competitive options.

Just let people split their bonuses. You get a total of +2 from your race, assigned how you want based on that race's standard modifiers (STR/CON for mountain dwarves). And you get a total of +2 from your class, assigned how you want based on that class's standard proficiency saves (say STR/CON for fighters). But no more than a +2 to any one stat. So this hypothetical mountain dwarf fighter would get +2 STR and +2 CON; a mountain dwarf paladin would get +2 between STR/CON and +2 between WIS/CHA.

That would make for a far more viable combos and also open up quite a few options that are strictly bad. All those red and purple races in those class optimization guides would suddenly be black, for example. So you could honestly be viable with an unconventional race/class combo.

 

[Mistwell]

You could easily place a rule that states only the stat bonus is gained when the first class is chosen and none after that.

It's almost as if that's exactly what I said. Oh wait...

 

[Corpsetaker]

It's almost as if that's exactly what I said. Oh wait...

Ahhhh must have missed that.

My apologies.

 

[ninjayeti]

You could make the exact same argument against race-based modifiers. "Race-based bonuses are totally unnecessary in a system that already lets you arrange your attribute scores optimally for your race. How does a rule that just lets you start out with the highest stat a bit higher really add anything to the game?" Since the game already allows you to put your stats where you want them, why do you need mechanical reinforcement of your race? If you want to play a strong half-orc, just put a higher stat in strength.

The reason for both race and class (or possibly neither) is that providing a bonus for race pigeon-holes and stereotypes characters based on their race. A half-orc wizard will be less than an elf wizard for a lot of play time if not their entire career. It's only because of bounded numbers in 5E that permit the possibility of "lesser races" catching up.

1) Racial bonuses are a mechanic that supports the lore of the game. If the lore says "Elves are smart and graceful" then the rules should reflect that. Without racial bonuses (or another mechanic) there is no reason for an Elf PC not to dump Int and/or Dex and the world is full of dumb, clumsy elves contrary to the lore. It is a different issue with classes because the mechanics already incentivize putting your best score in the class' most useful ability. So the lore says "wizards are smart" but the mechanics already insure this is the case without the need for a class based bonus.

2) The fact that some races are better suited for some classes is a feature not a bug. It supports the prevailing lore of the game (and of the fantasy genre generally). I get that you think that this lore is stupid - that is a valid opinion, but these are still the default assumptions of the game whether you agree or not and the rules should support that.

3) You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you can only play fully optimized race/class combos. This is not the case. I have been in groups with a hafling barbarian and a half-orc druid. While not totally optimized, both characters were solid contributors to the group not to mention a blast to play from what I saw.

To use your example, a dwarf wizard has a -1 save DC and spell attack compared to a high elf wizard (at least until level 12). The dwarf also likely has far more HP and wears medium armor. These are hardly game breaking differences. So if you want to play a dwarf wizard in 5E then - to use your own words - why the hell not?

 

[overgeeked]

1) Racial bonuses are a mechanic that supports the lore of the game. If the lore says "Elves are smart and graceful" then the rules should reflect that. Without racial bonuses (or another mechanic) there is no reason for an Elf PC not to dump Int and/or Dex and the world is full of dumb, clumsy elves contrary to the lore.

You seem to take a rather monolithic view of "lore" and "fantasy". Just because Tolkien made elves pretty and smart doesn't mean that every fantasy author ever, much less every fantasy game ever, should follow suit. Where's the creativity and uniqueness? Oh, I guess you get that from microscopic variations on the exact same tropes hammered to death over the course of 30+ years. Dextrous elven rangers. Yep. Coz that don't get old. Tough dwarven fighter. Plucky comic relief lithe halfling thief. Yawn. Gimme some variety. I'd much rather have a fat and stupid elf or a smart half-orc or a charismatic dwarf then trod those same hollow and over done stereotypes and tropes for another 30+ years.

It is a different issue with classes because the mechanics already incentivize putting your best score in the class' most useful ability. So the lore says "wizards are smart" but the mechanics already insure this is the case without the need for a class based bonus.

There's no mechanical guarantee that a wizard is smart. There's huge honking penalties if they're not smart. That's a wildly different thing.

2) The fact that some races are better suited for some classes is a feature not a bug. It supports the prevailing lore of the game (and of the fantasy genre generally). I get that you think that this lore is stupid - that is a valid opinion, but these are still the default assumptions of the game whether you agree or not and the rules should support that.

No, I simply disagree that the fantasy genre as a whole is some monolithic thing that should kowtow to Tolkien and never do anything outside what he wrote 80 years ago. Further, that when you casually label the entirety of a given race as smarter than everyone else or the entirety of a give race as dumber than everyone else or the whole of a species as good whilst the whole of other species are evil, that's blatant racism.

3) You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you can only play fully optimized race/class combos. This is not the case. I have been in groups with a hafling barbarian and a half-orc druid. While not totally optimized, both characters were solid contributors to the group not to mention a blast to play from what I saw.

In other games, sure. Not in D&D. You either play the best combo to achieve what you want or you suck. If you want to play the ultimate skill monkey and you don't take levels in bard and/or rogue (and possibly a few other things), you're doing it wrong. If you want to play a wizard you better have the highest INT possible, or you're doing it wrong. The system rewards optimization. The DMs reward optimization (despite some claiming they despise it). And most players reward optimization (despite railing against it on forums). You're sitting around a table and the DM throws an over-budget encounter at you. Either you get really, really lucky... have a party that's optimized for their roles... or you die. Sometimes groups get lucky or the DM realizes their mistake and pulls back. But it's optimization or TPK more often than not. And trust me, the next time someone comes to the table with a half-orc wizard everyone groans and loudly asks why they gimped themselves and the party. Doesn't take long for the culture to "correct" aberrant behavior.

To use your example, a dwarf wizard has a -1 save DC and spell attack compared to a high elf wizard (at least until level 12). The dwarf also likely has far more HP and wears medium armor. These are hardly game breaking differences. So if you want to play a dwarf wizard in 5E then - to use your own words - why the hell not?

Why not? Because the game itself, the DMs, and the players all reward optimization and punish any lack thereof.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There's also the years of training factor that shouldn't be dismissed. The same arguments you're making for keeping race-based bonuses (which almost no one is arguing should go away, for what it's worth), can be made for including class-based bonuses.

I'm not arguing against the inclusion of class-based stat bonuses. Those do make sense, for the very reason you suggest. I'm arguing against the removal of race-based stat bonuses, because genetics do matter. Maybe the genetic factor is so small as to be negligible within our real-world human populations, but they've always been significant within fantasy worlds that include orcs and elves and halflings.

You don't get many dwarf wizards at the table because they're mechanically hindered, which reinforces some of the terrible fantasy fiction stereotypes, and the few players and DMs who internalize these things and go on to write fantasy fiction then include these stereotypes in their fiction, which is then used to reinforce the stereotypes at the table.

Tropes are important. You may personally feel that they're overplayed, and would like to seem them die, but they are at the core of the cultural zeitgeist that is traditional fantasy.

If you've ever wondered why science fiction is less popular than fantasy, a large part of it is that science fiction lacks a widely-recognized set of tropes that would allow anyone to jump into the world and immediately understand what's going on. Everyone already knows what an elf is, and expects them to have good eyesight and proficiency with the longbow. If you remove the tropes - perhaps creating a unique set of subversions along the way - then you raise the barrier to entry for anyone who isn't already invested in your world.

D&D gives you the baseline. It is, for the most part, just generic fantasy. If you're experienced enough to be bored with generic fantasy, then there's always Dark Sun and Eberron and Planescape, etc. Or you could create your own setting, or even your own system if you really felt like it.

A dotty old man with a pointy hat and a weak heart haplessly wandering through a death-trap filled with big nasty beasties trying to kill and eat him who, when those beasties attack, mumbles a few words to create a massive ball of fire to launch at his enemies but then somehow forgets how to do that is utterly believable, but a particular gnome being stronger than a particular half-orc is not? Come on.

Actually, Vancian casting is one of the few areas where D&D strays from generic fantasy, and they've been slowly eroding it in every edition.

And it is entirely possible for a particular gnome to be stronger than a particular half-orc, but it will be in spite of the genetic disadvantage rather than because of it. This has always been the case, and will continue to be the case for as long as the game rules reflect the reality of the setting.

 

[ninjayeti]

Oh, I guess you get that from microscopic variations on the exact same tropes hammered to death over the course of 30+ years. Dextrous elven rangers. Yep. Coz that don't get old. Tough dwarven fighter. Plucky comic relief lithe halfling thief. Yawn. Gimme some variety. I'd much rather have a fat and stupid elf or a smart half-orc or a charismatic dwarf then trod those same hollow and over done stereotypes and tropes for another 30+ years.

D&D has described elves as dexterous and dwarves as tough from the origins of the game in 70's to the PHB from last year. I am not saying that can't get stale. I am not saying you can't change the default assumptions in any given campaign. But the baseline rules support the baseline lore - I have a hard time seeing the problem with that.

In other games, sure. Not in D&D. You either play the best combo to achieve what you want or you suck. If you want to play the ultimate skill monkey and you don't take levels in bard and/or rogue (and possibly a few other things), you're doing it wrong. If you want to play a wizard you better have the highest INT possible, or you're doing it wrong.

As I have said I have played in groups with characters that had non-optimal race/class combos. I guess we were all having too much fun to realize they were doing it wrong. In retrospect we should have told them how much they sucked for choosing to play a fun character over a +1 to their save DC....

 

[overgeeked]

If you've ever wondered why science fiction is less popular than fantasy, a large part of it is that science fiction lacks a widely-recognized set of tropes that would allow anyone to jump into the world and immediately understand what's going on. Everyone already knows what an elf is, and expects them to have good eyesight and proficiency with the longbow. If you remove the tropes - perhaps creating a unique set of subversions along the way - then you raise the barrier to entry for anyone who isn't already invested in your world.

That's not really the case. Fantasy is far more popular than SF, granted, but it's not for the reason you list. It's certainly not that SF lacks easily recognizable tropes, rather it's that most prose SF treats the tech as the main focus of the story rather than the characters or the plot. I'm talking about prose novels. Most of the big grossing SF films of course go the other way. They either focus on the characters or focus on the action, or both.

When SF treats the future, spaceships, aliens, ray guns, strange tech, and the like as merely part of the setting... rather than the whole of the story itself, lots of people get into it and enjoy it. Look at the highest grossing SF films. Avatar. Jurassic Park. Jurassic World. Arguably the Avengers films. Star Wars. Hunger Games. Iron Man. Transformers. Guardians of the Galaxy. Independence Day. Inception. Matrix. Aliens. And the popular TV shows like Doctor Who.

But in almost none of them is the science or the technology the actual main focus of the story. That's why those films and shows are so successful, for science fiction. And why most people won't give prose science fiction the time of day. A 1500-word info dump of a description detailing exactly how an engine is manufactured and how it bends space-time to let the characters travel faster than the speed of light is as dull as. On the flip side, watching a bumbling knob of an Earth man try to ensnare a blue alien woman with his pelvic sorcery is great fun. And makes a lot of money.

So no, it's not that SF lacks easily recognizable tropes, it's that SF is mostly technology/engineering porn. Focusing on the gear instead of the people.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I like the idea of splitting up the bonus, but I would rather throw additional bonus into the Background feature rather than class. As it is the classes are so frontloaded, that they have to drop out proficiencies for some classes when multiclassing and a lot of what you are representing in terms of what you were doing before you were an adventurer is nicely covered by the background concept.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's certainly not that SF lacks easily recognizable tropes, rather it's that most prose SF treats the tech as the main focus of the story rather than the characters or the plot. I'm talking about prose novels.

That's tangential to the topic at hand. We're talking about tropes in games, and world settings.

You don't have to understand the world in order to watch a movie, or read a book. You do have to understand the world in order to play an immersive game.