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

[Yaarel]

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.

Cool. I appreciate your post.

I saw you were genuinely interested in the Alfar, which is why went thru the trouble to discuss them more.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

Yeah, an importune penalty kills character concepts.

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).

I too value abilities to make races feel different from each other, and too find the Playtest Human problematic because the +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 makes the human feel wrong.

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)

I am ambivalent about ability caps.

If they are around, I support the idea of different ability caps for different races.

At the same time, it appears magic items can break thru these ‘natural’ caps. In that case, there will be characters with scores of 22, 27, and so on anyway.

Because of the porousness of the caps, I suspect, it will become first official rule to be widely ignored, similar to how 1e racial class restrictions and level caps became nearly universally ignored.



My general view is, gentle encouragements of certain character concepts for a race are good and important. It is good if a Halfling tends to make a good Rogue. But heavy-handed bonuses and penalties that interfere with DM and player creativity are bad. The least amount of bonus or penalty that it takes to convey the feel of a strength or weakness is the best amount. Those who want to play against type should be able to do so. Those who want to play one of the types that a setting intends can enjoy a bit of plot protection as a reward for reinforcing the tropes that make the setting feel more vivid.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

First, I disagree with your view of Murphy. He did not become a hero with heart from anything about his personality - it was all the US propaganda machine that did that. That's not charisma. Anyone can be made popular with the full force of the US propaganda machine behind him.

But more importantly - MURPHY WAS NEVER MY POINT. I was never saying "Here is this one example, and if it is wrong then my entire thesis is wrong because everything I've said is built on this one example". Murphy is a side note to this discussion. Which you knew. Because it's been said four times now.

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.

OK, so now that we both agree with the friggen point I've been making for two days now repeatedly (that there are average people that accomplish extraordinary things) how about you address it, given it refutes your claim you NEED to min/max to be a hero.

 

[Yaarel]

I said min-maxing is good for storytelling. *Most* stories - especially the ones that make money - use tropes that min-max.

I also said nature min-maxes via evolution, so one species has abilities that differ from an other species.



Maybe relatedly. I like how TV shows change the character in focus each episode. I like shows that juggle several interrelated stories at the same time. (But please make the actors look different from each other, sometimes it hard to keep track!) I am finding stories that revolve around a single hero somewhat annoying. Maybe too much single character is a bit meglomaniacal or solopsistic, or something.

In brief, I prefer the shift toward stories that feature several ‘central’ characters. The group of heroes is also good for D&D stories, where each hero has a chance to shine.

Min-maxing helps heroes take turns in the spot light. It makes each hero feel distinctive from fellow heroes.

 

[the Jester]

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.

Ahhh, I see I was not very clear about what I meant.

It's not that all dms must use my gnome; it's that all players in a given gm's campaign must use that gm's gnomes. I am one of those old-skool types who put strong emphasis on the campaign's status as independent of any given pc (or group), and hold strongly to my ownership/authorial authority over the campaign. I love it when a player tries to add some lore to the game, but only if it fits in. I don't default to "Yes" when a pc comes up with background elements that didn't previously exist; I default to "Does this fit the campaign?"

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.

See, I disagree because of the odd stat phenomenon.

Let's say I'm playing a character whose stats are all rolled at 13- not likely, I know, but let's start there. With no racial modifiers the character's total ability bonus is +6 (+1 per stat from 12-13).

Now, examining three cases- the "+2, -2", the "+1 only" and the "+1, +1, -1" cases:

With +2, -2, the pc's overall ability bonus remains +6.

With +1 only, it increases to +7.

With +1, +1, -1, it increases to +7 as well.

The problem arises in that a pc with a mix of odd and even stats will almost surely place the +1s into odd stats (gaining an additional +2 to his total stat bonus) and his -1 into an even stat (losing nothing). THAT is the difference that I object to. I prefer the traditional +1, -1 scheme from 1e, but it simply doesn't work well with the current chart for ability bonuses, where every even stat is a significant increase but every odd stat is a meaningless decrease (or increase). To me, I find the breaking of that particular balance element highly distasteful.

I suspect that the thinking behind the +1 by race in 5e is that the +1 by class will do half the lifting. I'm of a mixed mind, but trying to remain open to the end results. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Mistwell]

Use it or lose it....Min-maxing creates characters that make good stories. They have salient strengths and weaknesses that the audience can recognize.

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

I expect good stories to automatically use these cliches, as does most of the entertainment industry...Stories that dont use these conventions are often the ‘artsy’ movies that seem off, and make less money.

‘Underdog’ stories require min-maxing.

I said min-maxing is good for storytelling. *Most* stories - especially the ones that make money - use tropes that min-max.

I also said nature min-maxes via evolution, so one species has abilities that differ from an other species.

It sure looked like, from the above that you were saying min-maxing was required for a good story. You went through a series of statements that made it pretty clear that you think lack of min-maxing makes for bad stories, that min-maxing is expected for good storytelling, min-maxing is required for an underdog story. That tells me you're discounting any opinion that an average person can achieve greatness, that you must be extraordinary and focused on a particular strength to achieve greatness. And I think that's bunk.

Min-maxing helps heroes take turns in the spot light. It makes each hero feel distinctive from fellow heroes.

Role playing does this, not stats on a character sheet.

 

[pemerton]

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

For the reasons that [MENTION=21556]Jester[/MENTION] gives, I'd probably go with +2, +2, -2. But the idea of trading of a bonus for a penalty at the time of choosing a race is an interesting one.

I also agree with you that in a party-based, spotlight-sharing game like D&D the rules should support clear distinctions of strengths and weakness both within and between the PCs.

 

[Campbell]

Generally speaking, I'm not really a fan of racial bonuses and penalties as a way to differentiate races. I'd rather the focus by on unique racial abilities that can be utilized by a variety of classes, although they might be a little more useful for some rather than others. Ability score modifications tend to be a very big deal at lower levels but fade into the background over time. More importantly they do little to reinforce the flavor of a specific race.

 

[RMcD]

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

It seems to me that you kind of disagree with yourself here.

If the stat scores are meant to represent the average variance then by all means ignoring the stat changes seems way way way more appropriate, because you aren't playing an amalgamation of the average of your race, you're playing a specific individual who might be on all sorts of different places on the bell curve.

Indeed, if they do represent averages then there should be say, Orcs who have 18 Charisma, but they can't because all Orcs get -1 to Charisma, so your player is never going to get 18, but you've just said that there is 18 Charisma Orcs out there so why can't the player be them?

In the end it's really only comes down to balance, you can put an 18 in any stat and be above average for something your race is known at sucking at, the difference between 18, 17, 16 is negligible when comparing an individual to the vast populations of races.

Edit:

For the record I prefer traits to differentiate races and classes. Like, in 2E Dwarves, Gnomes and Halflings got some extra bonuses to save because of their innate hardiness. That's something all of them have, every single Dwarf is different from every single human in that way, some dwarves are more hardy than others, etc.

I think that's way better than adding random stats to try and force the players to conform to the standards of a race rather than the realities of individuals.

Simple stuff, like dark vision/low-light vision, how they sleep, how they eat, makes for much more flavour.

I also agree with many of the comments that a low score can make a character interesting and help promote team work, when everyone has scores above 10 it's not so interesting which is one of my issues with 4d6d1, however it can often lead to dump stats that mean nothing to roleplay and gameplay outside of small specific encounters. Sure the DM can try and separate the party so that the fighter suddenly has to use his 3 Wisdom or something but a lot of the time it's like "Okay here is a door, my wizard backs up and lets Jim the Fighter go forward". It can be fun to mess with them when they end up relying hard on each parties specializations but then that's min maxing and then when they are separated and have to rely on their own abilities you don't want to punish them too much for being interesting. Very difficult DM wise.

But yeah, traits all the way.

 

[the Jester]

It seems to me that you kind of disagree with yourself here.

If the stat scores are meant to represent the average variance then by all means ignoring the stat changes seems way way way more appropriate, because you aren't playing an amalgamation of the average of your race, you're playing a specific individual who might be on all sorts of different places on the bell curve.

Indeed, if they do represent averages then there should be say, Orcs who have 18 Charisma, but they can't because all Orcs get -1 to Charisma, so your player is never going to get 18, but you've just said that there is 18 Charisma Orcs out there so why can't the player be them?

Hold on there, Tex- I never said that there are orcs with Cha 18 out there. Indeed, if the racial modifier for Cha is -1, my game would assume that an orc with an 18 Cha is as rare as a human with a 19 Cha- which is to say, it's beyond the human/orcish normal realm of possibility, but can be achieved via e.g. stats that increase via leveling up or magic.

A racial modifier isn't just a shift in the average; it's also a shift in the range. If your race gets +1 to a stat, the range is 4-19, not 3-18.

At least, that's my vision of the meaning of stat modifiers by race.

For the record I prefer traits to differentiate races and classes. Like, in 2E Dwarves, Gnomes and Halflings got some extra bonuses to save because of their innate hardiness. That's something all of them have, every single Dwarf is different from every single human in that way, some dwarves are more hardy than others, etc.

I think that's way better than adding random stats to try and force the players to conform to the standards of a race rather than the realities of individuals.

But see, that's just it-- you can play a (f'rexample) charismatic orc; you simply need to work harder at it and allocate a higher stat to your starting Charisma score. This is far from forcing players to conform to the standards of a race; while the average orc is Cha 9 (as an example; I don't know off hand what the average orc's Cha score is actually like), a pc orc could be Cha 17, getting pretty far beyond the stereotypical punchin' and gruntin' that orcs are known for.

Simple stuff, like dark vision/low-light vision, how they sleep, how they eat, makes for much more flavour.

And D&D has traditionally given nonhuman races both stat modifiers and specific racial abilities, traits and/or powers.

I also agree with many of the comments that a low score can make a character interesting and help promote team work, when everyone has scores above 10 it's not so interesting which is one of my issues with 4d6d1, however it can often lead to dump stats that mean nothing to roleplay and gameplay outside of small specific encounters. Sure the DM can try and separate the party so that the fighter suddenly has to use his 3 Wisdom or something but a lot of the time it's like "Okay here is a door, my wizard backs up and lets Jim the Fighter go forward". It can be fun to mess with them when they end up relying hard on each parties specializations but then that's min maxing and then when they are separated and have to rely on their own abilities you don't want to punish them too much for being interesting. Very difficult DM wise.

But yeah, traits all the way.

I'm a huge fan of low-stat pcs. Some of the most memorable pcs I've played had very low scores (a couple of them had 3s), and one of the most entertaining pcs ever in my game had a Wisdom of 1. (Long story short, it was part of his character concept.) Another was a kobold with a Strength of 1.

One thing about low mental stats is that the pc may not realize he's stupid, a boor, etc. Indeed, often what makes a fool is his certainty that he is wise. I really like it when pcs are willing to play that aspect of the low stat, and am fortunate to have been in lots of groups where the low-Charisma guy is loud and outspoken, the stupid pc is always coming up with terrible plans, etc.