D&D 5E Typical Race Abilities: +1, +1, −1

[nomotog]

I like the +- version of ability scores. Partly out of my preference for 3ed, but also because it's your negative scores that are often more fun. Having a really bad stat creates a challenge for you to work around and builds character. Most compelling characters have some big flaw in some way.


Do ability mods matter that much? With the way most group assign abilities, the + and the - don't matter as much as what you point buy or what attributes get your big rolls and what ones get your small rolls. Then D&D is including a lot more options to increasing your abilities. I might have that wrong, but it's what I thought of first on reading this thread.

 

[Derren]

Strong Guy (Strength max)
Smart Guy (Intelligence max)
Idealistic Guy (Charisma max, often Heart or Chick)
Realistic Guy (Wisdom max, often Lancer or Truthsayer)
Leader Guy (often generalist, more like a team captain, sets goals, typically the protagonist)

And you expect those horribly overused clichés to automatically make good stories?

 

[Yaarel]

I have two major issues with this approach.

First, I am very convinced that, at least as long as we use the current chart for ability bonuses (e.g. +1 at a stat of 12, +2 at a stat of 14, etc), giving odd ability bonuses and penalties is a terrible idea that really promotes min-maxing.

Second, and this is a playstyle thing, so YMMV, if a player wants to avoid a stat penalty (in a system where we go back to the balanced bonus/penalty scheme of 2e and earlier), he or she should play a human. I'm really not down with what I'd term "coddling" players. To me, the stat modifiers for a race represent the average variance from human; i.e. a halfling is more dextrous, on average, than a human, but weaker. Eliminating racial penalties just so a player can avoid a stat penalty rubs me very much the wrong way, and I wouldn't be inclined to allow it in my game, just as I'd be disinclined to let a player worship a god who grants access to the domains of Good and Law, yet play his or her pc as CE because it's "fun". If the fun is in avoiding penalties or alignment restrictions or whatever, the player needs to find the options without those things, not expect the dm to rewrite the game to accommodate him or her.

Again, obviously, YMMV.

I liked the Playtest where the Race added +1 and the Class added +1. It feels realistic. Also, it supplies the +2 that you mention, but still keeps the concept pressure gentle with only a +1 that an odd score can make use of.

Players have such different playstyles, the ability system needs to be as flexible as possible, no meet the needs of different kinds of playstyles. Being able to eschew the Race penalty helps those players who dislike it by getting out of the way.

 

[Yaarel]

And you expect those horribly overused clichés to automatically make good stories?

The opposite.

I expect good stories to automatically use these cliches, as does most of the entertainment industry.

Even variations, like a Threesome, still use the same tropes. For example, Leader, Idealistic, and Realistic.

Stories that dont use these conventions are often the ‘artsy’ movies that seem off, and make less money.

 

[nomotog]

And you expect those horribly overused clichés to automatically make good stories?

Well they are cliche for a reason. People didn't overuse them because they were bad ideas.

 

[Yaarel]

It was partially BECAUSE he was not min-maxed that he made the best story. Underdog stories are often the best stories. David vs. Goliath is about how min-maxing isn't the best story.

‘Underdog’ stories require min-maxing.

In this story, David is a Leader Guy, while Goliath is a Strong Guy.

 

[Yaarel]

D&D Classes

Fighter (Strong Guy)
Wizard (Smart Guy)
Rogue (Realistic Guy)

The rest seem like hybrids. For example, Bard is an Idealistic Guy, but is often a generalist. Similarly Cleric.

The ‘Leader Guy’ tends to be any player who can keep the group focused on goals.

 

[Yaarel]

That's true on the macro level over long periods of time for an entire species, but not necessarily on the micro level for a number of years or a single individual. Audie Murphy was the greatest soldier for the U.S. during WW2, and yet he was 5'5" and weighed 110 pounds when he applied for the marines (and was turned down, and then turned down again for the army paratroopers, only to finally be accepted in the army infantry). Min-maxing doesn't really dictate how life goes on the micro level.



Again, not necessarily. Same example - Audie Murphy made for the best hero story of WW2 for the U.S., and it was partially BECAUSE he was not min-maxed that he made the best story. Underdog stories are often the best stories. David vs. Goliath is about how min-maxing isn't the best story.

Actually, Audie Murphy seems to have become a popular trope precisely as an Idealistic Guy (Charisma max).

Someone who is biographing his story might characterize him as a ‘Hero with Heart’, for example. In this case, he is both a Leader Guy and an Idealistic Guy. His idealism keeps his team together, but he is also the same person who keeps his team focused on specific goals. Hence he is an effective asset to the military.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The first rule of writing is too have good characters, with ‘tropes’ and themes, that include strengths (‘maxes’) that make sense and flaws (‘mins’).

Ah, so you are not actually talking about min-maxing, in any recognizable RPG sense. Got it.

Well then:
Your proposal here does not produce characters with flaws, in any meaningful sense. It penalizes abilities that are unlikely to be needed for characters with the strengths that are cozen, diminishing the force of the apparent sacrifice.

 

[Yaarel]

In the RPG sense, when characters have a ‘dump ability’, it is a serious weakness. It means, the character is unlikely to succeed at certain tasks, and someone else will have to cover one during those tasks. Min-maxing encourages interdependence. It promotes teamwork.

This weakness becomes a story. Consider the X-Men. One doesnt ask Professor Xavier to run a marathon. One doesnt ask Wolverine to crack a computer code. These personal frustrations give a story challenges and motives to interact to achieve the challenges.

In D&D, one doesnt ask a low-Wis hero to do Perception. One doesnt ask a low-Str hero to break down doors.

In 5e, abilities seem like they will be more important. A weak ability seems likely be more painful. Saving throws will rely on every ability. Moreover, the emphasis on ‘ability checks’ to improvise makes each ability more likely to find use.