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

[Kobold Stew]

When I play an Elf, my character concept is a mythologically accurate one - where Charisma and Intelligence are the most salient tropes. The Elf (Alfr) personifies success, superhuman beauty, innate magic, charm, persuasiveness, luck, prestige, fertility, wealth - success in every way. Charisma is essential. Intelligence in the sense of skill, logic, technology, memorization, and so forth is also vital. Also Wisdom is important in the sense of intuition and foresight. On the other hand, Dexterity is irrelevant. The point is, I should be able to play an archetype that I find fun and interesting. The game needs to be as flexible as possible. It shouldnt force me to play a Human in order to explore an Elf archetype.

Again, you are making stuff up. Your choice to give us specifically the Old Norse spelling of the race name suggests (bolded above) that you actually have the language, and are drawing on specific texts.

So I'm calling you on that:

What texts, specifically, provide this mythological foundation on which you are drawing?
What texts, specifically, provide you the "salient tropes"?

I'll give you long-livedness and unnatural beauty. Everything else is your fiction (filtered through Tolkien, many years of D&D, and others).

If that's what you want to play, fine! But no more bogus arguments, please.

 

[Yaarel]

I read the Eddas and the Sagas in the original language. Together, stories and comments here and there flesh out a reasonably comprehensive view of what an Alfr is.

An Alfr personifies success, so even other races rely on them for successful outcomes. The Alfr is known for superhuman beauty - which is notably masculine - unlike the beauty of the Greek Nymph which is notably feminine. The Alfr is superlative in magical powers - including charm and mental magic (Seiðr), intuitive sensing and foresight (Spá), healing and protective magic (Galdr), creation of magic items and technologies, summoning otherworldly spirits, weather magic, and so on. They are known for beauty both in physical appearance but also in mental beauty, such as beautiful speech - both in the sense of a beautiful voice and in the sense of appealing word choice and pursuasive logic. They personify accurate advice. They materialize and dematerialize into spirit/wind at will. And so on. They personify cosmic order, winning, skill, luck, fate, destiny, prestige, fame, glamor - success.

They are celestial beings who live in the sky, and literally glow daylight, somewhat analogous to mideastern angels, and the terms are often used in similar abstract contexts - such as calling certain people an angel in the sense of a wondrously charming person, or an ‘angel of battle’ in the sense of personifying such ‘lucky’, fateful, skillful, magical, successful outcomes. Likewise, biblical angels are known for masculine beauty.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Specific texts, please, preferably with chapter references. I'm really curious to go to the source myself: I have seen none of this.

You mention "the eddas", so let's start with the verse Edda (title with stanza number given).

Voluspa 16 -- a dwarf named "Elf".
Voluspa 48 -- elves somehow parallel to the Aesir (cf Grimnir 4)
Havamal 143 -- Aesir, elves, dwarves, and giants distinct races
Havamal 159 -- the speaker (Odin) knows the difference between Aesir and elves.
Havamal 160 -- a dwarf once sang a spell before Aesir and elves.
Fafnismal 13 -- norns come from Aesir, elves, and dwarves
Sigrdrifumal 18 -- Aesir, elves, Vanir, humans

So, after an admittedly quick look, the verse Edda gives me only that elves exist as a "race", but possess no distinctive qualities. None of what you describe.

You've said a lot of things here, but I'm asking for a source, because I think you don't have one:

From where, for example, do you get the claim "They are celestial beings who live in the sky, and literally glow daylight"?

 

[Li Shenron]

Typical Race Ability Score Modifiers: +1, +1, −1

I think the proposed system is ok, although at the same time I don't think it's significantly better than the current system.

In both cases, the bonuses are so small, that are hardly noticeable, when you consider that the ability scores generation methods are generous and flexible. Nobody is ever going to notice that -1, and you'll notice the +1 only in the limit case when someone rolled an 18 and it is increased to 19, but wait until level 4 (or 8) and it caps at 20 anyway.

I don't think +1 worsen min-maxing compared to +2. Intuitively, I think the smaller the bonus, the less important it is to get it. In 3e it felt quite important for a lot of players to pick the race which boosted your most important score, not only because +2 always meant something, but also because having no cap, that +2 would stay forever compared to not having it.

At the same time in 3e it was important to avoid races with -2 in your most important score, at all costs especially for casters. This sucked, because a lot of players actually want to play a race because of the narrative, not because it is more convenient, but had to take significant penalties.

---

I do think that the feeling is important for world building, so if Elves are supposed to be graceful and Dwarves are supposed to be stout, a +1 Dex and +1 Con respectively delivers the feeling that the rules are consistent with the narrative (which is why I hate the current Humans).

However, it has to be noted that if the cap is 20 for everyone, then those +1 become only a matter of statistics, i.e. "there are more higher-Dex elves than dwarves". Still, the highest-Dex elf in the world is as dextrous as the highest-Dex dwarf in the world. At which point, if it's only a matter of statistics but not of absolute peaks, we could eliminate all bonuses and just say that most elves have high Dex. Most players would anyway put a fairly high score in Dex when playing an elf.

(But I would be in favor of using different caps for different races)

 

[the Jester]

I read the Eddas and the Sagas in the original language. Together, stories and comments here and there flesh out a reasonably comprehensive view of what an Alfr is.

An Alfr personifies success, so even other races rely on them for successful outcomes. The Alfr is known for superhuman beauty - which is notably masculine - unlike the beauty of the Greek Nymph which is notably feminine. The Alfr is superlative in magical powers - including charm and mental magic (Seiðr), intuitive sensing and foresight (Spá), healing and protective magic (Galdr), creation of magic items and technologies, summoning otherworldly spirits, weather magic, and so on. They are known for beauty both in physical appearance but also in mental beauty, such as beautiful speech - both in the sense of a beautiful voice and in the sense of appealing word choice and pursuasive logic. They personify accurate advice. They materialize and dematerialize into spirit/wind at will. And so on. They personify cosmic order, winning, skill, luck, fate, destiny, prestige, fame, glamor - success.

They are celestial beings who live in the sky, and literally glow daylight, somewhat analogous to mideastern angels, and the terms are often used in similar abstract contexts - such as calling certain people an angel in the sense of a wondrously charming person, or an ‘angel of battle’ in the sense of personifying such ‘lucky’, fateful, skillful, magical, successful outcomes. Likewise, biblical angels are known for masculine beauty.

That's all fine, but what does that have to do with an elf in D&D?

Don't get me wrong, that's a fine approach to take as a dm; what I take issue with is your continuing assessment of your approach as objectively correct. It's not. It may work fine for you and for your players (and for many others), but let's face it- legend and myth never bother balancing nonhuman races against human races. Neither do books or tv shows. They aren't D&D, and whatever version of elf you like (be it Tolkien, Norse, or whatever) is NOT a version suitable for the game at large. Try to shoehorn it in, and you have the 2e Complete Book of Elves.
Yet I disagree the game must force players to avoid Nonhuman races. For example, I care about mythological accuracy. When I play an Elf, my character concept is a mythologically accurate one - where Charisma and Intelligence are the most salient tropes. The Elf (Alfr) personifies success, superhuman beauty, innate magic, charm, persuasiveness, luck, prestige, fertility, wealth - success in every way. Charisma is essential. Intelligence in the sense of skill, logic, technology, memorization, and so forth is also vital. Also Wisdom is important in the sense of intuition and foresight. On the other hand, Dexterity is irrelevant. The point is, I should be able to play an archetype that I find fun and interesting. The game needs to be as flexible as possible. It shouldnt force me to play a Human in order to explore an Elf archetype.

First, I've never argued against nonhuman pcs. I'm arguing that if you want to play an elf, you have to play that elf by the rules. Specifically, in regards to your +1, +1, -1 scheme, I'm calling it out as a bad idea for a rule, both in terms of mechanics and in terms of verisimilitude. (I know, there's that word...)

So, about your elf- What if that isn't the type of elf that exists in the dm's game? Do you still insist on being able to play your type of elf? Certainly, that doesn't match up with the description of elves in 4e (or really in any D&D stuff, given your dismissal of Dex), nor does it lend itself to game balance.

I absolutely and categorically disagree that referring to mythology is a good way to ensure the game stays balanced. I absolutely and categorically disagree that the game MUST cater to every taste of every player in every way. Would you also argue that you should be able to play a heavily-armored, sword-wielding wizard? The no-armor, crap-weapons trope is a pure D&D thing; there are plenty of mythological counterexamples. Yet the player who makes this pitch to me is going to have to wrap his concept up in the system, rather than expecting the system to change to accommodate him.

And you haven't even addressed the balance issue (+1/-1 vs. +2/-2), except to handwave it away. That's a recipe for giving freebies to the player, which I straight up DO NOT do. I don't give pcs bonus feats for fun, I don't give them a magical +2 to hit just because, and I don't give out free stat bonuses- which is the main problem with adding odd numbers to stats in 3e and later D&D, as has been repeatedly addressed by the designers themselves.

I mentioned upthread that I am not a coddler. I don't pull punches in combat, I almost never fudge the dice (for or against the pcs), and I don't rearrange the milieu to insert new major cities, organizations, races, etc because someone likes the notion of them. I don't care what view you hoid, as a player, of gnomes; they have a specific nature and culture in my campaign, and no matter how much you love the idea, you don't get to play a tinker gnome. They don't exist just because you want them to; stuff in the world is stuff in the world, and you get to play with and among it. The campaign setting, to me, trumps any player's (or players') neat ideas about shoehorning whatever into it; I simply don't do that. At least not on the scale we're talking about. (It's an entirely different thing to take a pc's background elements that do fit in the world and run with them; if a pc wants to be an elf of the sort in the campaign world and wants to add, say, a noble house or trade route in an area not fully fleshed out, sure, that's fine. But wholesale rewritings of a race just to accommodate a pc's concept? I think not.)

 

[Mistwell]

For the record, Audie Murphy is above average mentally and below average physically. His remarkable idealism, appeal, tenacity, and so on, are what motivates him in the first place. In D&D terms, these are high mental abilities.

For the record, I called you out on avoiding the point I was making, and you simply did it again.

Where do we go from here Yaarel - I am making a point in response to you (that there are average people who accomplish extraordinary things in history), and you're pretending I am not making that point and simply re-stating your prior opinion that everyone must be min-maxed to accomplish extraordinary things as if there had not already been a response (two in fact).

 

[Yaarel]

Specific texts, please, preferably with chapter references. I'm really curious to go to the source myself: I have seen none of this. ... From where, for example, do you get the claim "They are celestial beings who live in the sky, and literally glow daylight"?

Maybe I will start a blog to track down all the Norse textual references concerning the Alfr and Dvergr, their translations into English, and their analyses, including parallels in Anglo-Saxon texts and later Scandinavian folklore. It is a time consuming commitment. If I do, I will post a link here in this thread, and PM you.



In the mean time, I moved the discussion of ‘the Alfar according to Norse texts’ to a separate thread. Link here.

 

[Yaarel]

For the record, I called you out on avoiding the point I was making, and you simply did it again.

Where do we go from here Yaarel - I am making a point in response to you (that there are average people who accomplish extraordinary things in history), and you're pretending I am not making that point and simply re-stating your prior opinion that everyone must be min-maxed to accomplish extraordinary things as if there had not already been a response (two in fact).

I am saying Audie Murphy isnt one of these ‘average people’, and to use him as an example of one is an error.

The fact Audie Murphy became a trope, of a ‘hero with heart’, is because he is a good example of min-maxing, an Idealistic Guy.

Ironically, this example demonstrates how min-maxing is good for storytelling and for popular icons.



Yes there are ‘average’ Joes and Janes who do important things. Probably a good example is Schindler from the movie Schindlers List. He comes from a wealthy family, but the story portrays him as a normal person, whose saving grace is he cares about human life.

 

[Yaarel]

So, about your elf - What if that isn't the type of elf that exists in the dm's game?

Different DMs use different settings at different times. The ‘rules’ need to accommodate the needs of as many DMs as possible.

You mention the example of the Gnome. The Gnome includes several different D&D traditions about them. The ‘rules’ for the Gnome need to be flexible enough to accommodate the Illusionist Gnome, the Tinker Gnome, the House Sprite Gnome, and so on. The rules even need to be flexible enough to make your own homebrew ‘Gnomes of Zurich’ possible (which I like much).

I know you arent saying it, but it sounds as if: All DMs must use the Gnomes according to the archetype that I like, in the setting that I like, with core rules that can only match my Gnomes in my setting.

Obviously, DMs need flexible rules to make different Gnomes according to their own tastes.

And you haven't even addressed the balance issue (+1/-1 vs. +2/-2), except to handwave it away. That's a recipe for giving freebies to the player, which I straight up DO NOT do. I don't give pcs bonus feats for fun, I don't give them a magical +2.

I dont understand your objection.

The +1 +1 −1 ability system that I propose is less of a ‘freebie’ than any systems that you are using now.

If you use 4e, then you grant +2 +2 as powerful upgrade.

+1 +1 −1 is much less powerful.

Moreover, the option of a single +1 is even less powerful than +2 +2.

Note in the 5e playtests, the races gain +1 +1.

My system is even less of a freebie, with the addition of a penalty −1, or else only one +1.



With regard to 3e Pathfinder, +2 +2 −2. I can live with that. But DMs who dislike the formidable −2 penalty, might be more comfortable with it by using the system that I propose.

Rock Gnome (+2 to Intelligence or Constitution, or both if −2 to Strength), Tinker Gnome.

 

[Kobold Stew]

You know what? I owe you an apology. It's clear that you have done the research that you had claimed. We can disagree on the interpretations here, but it's evident to me that your position is much better supported than I gave it credit for. I'm sorry.

I'll answer specific linguistic points in the other thread you have started. I still disagree on how this should/could relate to racial adjustments, but the case you make about mythology, which I thought was simply unsustainable, I now see as a matter of judgement and taste.