[Rant] I'm really happy Ability Score Penalties are gone [Archive]

Man on Fire

2020-03-18, 04:28 AM

I watched some video on youtube I will not name where suddenly the author goes on a tangent how 5e racial stats are annoying him because small races do not get a Strength penalty and it is somehow unrealistic that on average Halfling or Goblin will be as strong as Human or Loxodon.

It may be my experience with 3.5, but I have nothing but contempt for this line of thinking. It locked races into stereotypes and made it outright impossible to try to play a concept that could break out of the mold. I know, I spent a whole day once trying to desperately make an Orc bard that wouldn't actually be bad at things a Bard is supposed to be doing. I remember trying to find any way to make any build that would work for my idea of Goblin Fighter that actually works well in melee and the best result was still doing better with a crossbow than in the frontline. For a game that made so much bank on Drizzt, a drow who rises against the stereotypical portrayal of his race, it sure spend a lot of time making it a total pain to actually have a character who can do the same for any other "evil" race without ending up with a useless village idiot who merely deludes themselves into thinking they can do that thing "his people" aren't supposed to do. I am extremely grateful that the penalties are gone in 5e because it opens a realm of possibilities. And yes, that means I can plan a Halfling whose entire deal is they punch harder than you'd expect, a Dwarven Bard or an Orc Paladin.

Some of you can say that this is a role-playing game and that the penalties are supposed to impose limitations and weaknesses you can roleplay and complaining about them makes me a poor roleplayer. I will respond in two ways. First, a character who wants to prove stereotype associated with their race is wrong is not the same concept as character for whom that stereotype is right and they struggle to overcome it and even then, without the help of some serious magic, will never be as good at some things as Human or a race who was supposed to be good at it instead. Second, at some point you must remember this is not a one-player theatre and you are on the table with other players. And in my experience, they are more likely to tolerate and even welcome an unusual concept if they are sure it will not make your character a fifth wheel who cannot do, or cannot do as efficiently as everyone assumed, the thing they were supposed to be good at. If they'll feel they cannot rely on you as much as they should, they may ask you to retire that character. You are roleplaying a character who is supposed to be with these people because of a particular set of skills, after all.

Sorry for this rant, but this is something that's been irritating me for some time and I had to get out of my system. I'm glad that 5e got rid of the penalties. Aside of Orc's -1 INT but even then there is Eberron Orc, so they walked out even on that.

Magicspook

2020-03-18, 04:38 AM

BloodSnake'sCha

2020-03-18, 04:39 AM

Strifer

2020-03-18, 04:43 AM

I have to say, as far as rants go... you made some valid points and arguments. I like your point of view on this topic :)

LudicSavant

2020-03-18, 04:48 AM

I actually wish they'd go further in this direction.

See, the effects are not truly gone. You could, for instance, think of a Human as "+0" and a half-orc as +1 strength, +0 Con, -1 everything else by comparison. That's functionally the same as what we have now, the only difference is basically marketing.

And so here's the question: Why the heck are these modifiers still here? They're not providing a whole lot of in-world flavor difference; a half-orc and human Barbarian will still generally start with +3 Str mod and and end with +5 (usually even at the same levels). Even a half-orc Wizard is going to end up with 20 Int... they're just going to be a weaker mechanical character overall for their trouble. It basically only serves to make players feel worse about playing a character that's against a certain stereotype. And frankly, how "against type" is an orc shaman anyways? Or a Hobgoblin Fighter for that matter?

It seems like a legacy of past editions, stripped of its original context and purpose, living on as a sacred cow that no longer accomplishes anything positive, other than providing the warm fuzzies of familiarity.

Even some of the D&D devs have been saying this lately in various articles, but WotC as a whole seems afraid to well and truly finish off the sacred cow. It's about time it was slaughtered. Other ways to differentiate races are more interesting anyways.

Galithar

2020-03-18, 04:50 AM

Cheesegear

2020-03-18, 04:56 AM

It is completely silly that the game tries to force you to be a pansy prancy elf or a buff and gruff half orc.

It does no such thing. The game never tries to force you to do anything.

If you're using Point Buy, you're a Half-Orc Sorcerer. You put an '8' in STR, 'cause obviously...Now it's 10/0, and you no longer have a penalty to get out of Grapples and Restrains. Though if you're a Wizard, there are probably better ways to get out of Grapples/Restrains...But not always.

You're an Elf Fighter, wearing full plate, just like in Lord of the Rings. You put a 10 in DEX so your Initiative doesn't suck. Just kidding, it's 12, now your initiative is +1. Hell, you make your dump stat DEX, 'cause you're wearing full plate, so DEX is pointless. Oh wait, now it's 10. So no penalty on initiative. Slam more points into CON, because you can.

Yes. Playing a certain race gives you higher maximums, and that's great if you're trying to optimise your character.
But playing a certain race also gives you higher minimums, which essentially gives you a free dump stat, that isn't a dump stat. Which is great if you're not necessarily trying optimise your character, you're just trying to make it so that it isn't terrible in one aspect.

BloodSnake'sCha

2020-03-18, 05:04 AM

It does no such thing. The game never tries to force you to do anything.

If you're using Point Buy, you're a Half-Orc Sorcerer. You put an '8' in STR, 'cause obviously...Now it's 10/0, and you no longer have a penalty to get out of Grapples and Restrains. Though if you're a Wizard, there are probably better ways to get out of Grapples/Restrains...But not always.

You're an Elf Fighter, wearing full plate, just like in Lord of the Rings. You put a 10 in DEX so your Initiative doesn't suck. Just kidding, it's 12, now your initiative is +1. Hell, you make your dump stat DEX, 'cause you're wearing full plate, so DEX is pointless. Oh wait, now it's 10. So no penalty on initiative. Slam more points into CON, because you can.

Yes. Playing a certain race gives you higher maximums, and that's great if you're trying to optimise your character.
But playing a certain race also gives you higher minimums, which essentially gives you a free dump stat, that isn't a dump stat. Which is great if you're not necessarily trying optimise your character, you're just trying to make it so that it isn't terrible in one aspect.

As far as I know the maximum is the same for everyone.
Races only change your level 1-3 stats options(level 4 is an ASI) and the minimum is the relevant abilities.

LudicSavant

2020-03-18, 05:14 AM

But playing a certain race also gives you higher minimums, which essentially gives you a free dump stat, that isn't a dump stat. Which is great if you're not necessarily trying optimise your character, you're just trying to make it so that it isn't terrible in one aspect.

Opportunity costs are still costs. Playing a Half-Orc Sorcerer didn't give you a "free dump stat." In fact it's the opposite: you invested your character building resources in the least mathematically efficient way.

Edit:

You're an Elf Fighter, wearing full plate, just like in Lord of the Rings. You put a 10 in DEX so your Initiative doesn't suck. Just kidding, it's 12, now your initiative is +1. Hell, you make your dump stat DEX, 'cause you're wearing full plate, so DEX is pointless. Oh wait, now it's 10. So no penalty on initiative. Slam more points into CON, because you can

You'll actually have less points to "slam in" compared to the reverse situation.

An Elf Fighter who gets 10 Dex and 15 Con spent 9 points.
A Dwarf Fighter who gets 10 Dex and 15 Con spent 7 points. They could even use those extra 2 points to get 12 Dex, actually being more dextrous than the elf who has the same stats in every other regard.

JackPhoenix

2020-03-18, 06:11 AM

Easy fix with a house rule though. "Creatures with a strength score of 15 or lower have disadvantage when attacking with a weapon that has the 'Heavy' property." Or something similar. I always thought it was stupid that a Halflings can run around in Full Plate with no penalty (assuming 15+ Str) but could NEVER get rid of disadvantage on attacks with a Greatsword...

Hell I'd even be happy with a second property "small" that can be appended to a Heavy weapon reducing it's damage die by one size and removing disadvantage for small races. (And yes I realize this makes them nearly identical to their smaller counter part. A Greatsword would become 1d10... The same as a longsword wielded with two hands, but still allows the use of GWM feat... If you're going to make the feat nearly required for a 2H weapon user to keep pace, don't restrict it's use)

Because 'Heavy' property is misnomer: it's got nothing to do with weight, and everything to do with size. Same with 'Light', which is about (perceived) suitability for TWF instead.

Galithar

2020-03-18, 06:27 AM

Because 'Heavy' property is misnomer: it's got nothing to do with weight, and everything to do with size. Same with 'Light', which is about (perceived) suitability for TWF instead.

I mean you can say that, but light weapons are all 2 lbs or less and Heavy are all 6+ lbs. So weight seems to be a factor. Especially since the Lance which is clearly a very large weapon isn't listed as Heavy, and sits on the bottom end of weight for heavy. Some weapons without heavy weigh 6 lbs, but nothing greater than that doesn't have Heavy and nothing lighter does. With one exception on each end.

Greatclub, a giant heavy hunk of wood (or something) isn't heavy. It's both large AND heavy.

Longbow. It only weighs 2 lbs and has Heavy, but would historically have a draw weight of 80+ lbs.

Now this shows that size isn't the determining factor any more than actual weight. Where as weight is more reliable for determination.

All of that said it changes nothing. A small creature wielding a large weapon is not unreasonable if they have the strength to do it. Weapons, especially heavy ones, aren't about graceful precision movements. They are about hitting the right area, really hard while avoiding being hit yourself. A creature strong enough to swing the weapon is just as capable of doing that as a taller one. The weapon is always kept up. Any disadvantage they would have in the fight would not be limited by the size of their weapon, but by their size in general.

Dr. Cliché

2020-03-18, 06:39 AM

JackPhoenix

2020-03-18, 06:40 AM

I mean you can say that, but light weapons are all 2 lbs or less and Heavy are all 6+ lbs. So weight seems to be a factor. Especially since the Lance which is clearly a very large weapon isn't listed as Heavy, and sits on the bottom end of weight for heavy. Some weapons without heavy weigh 6 lbs, but nothing greater than that doesn't have Heavy and nothing lighter does. With one exception on each end.

Not really. It's just that bigger weapon is also logically heavier... unless it's a bow, which is big and pretty light. Lance *does* have Heavy-like disadvantage.... but only on adjecent targets (which should've been a thing for pike and whip too).

Greatclub, a giant heavy hunk of wood (or something) isn't heavy. It's both large AND heavy.

It apparently isn't as large as you think if it's not Heavy. Yes, solid chunk of wood would weight a lot, but it doesn't have to be that big. It gets the weight from sheer volume, which swords (and similar weapons) don't have.

Longbow. It only weighs 2 lbs and has Heavy, but would historically have a draw weight of 80+ lbs.

Draw weight doesn't matter, as Str is irrelevant to most ranged weapons. It is, however, too big for small creatures to draw properly, regardless of Str.

Now this shows that size isn't the determining factor any more than actual weight. Where as weight is more reliable for determination.

It is, if you check how the weapons with Heavy property looks like. Size and weight is directly related, in most cases.

Kane0

2020-03-18, 06:54 AM

Man on Fire

2020-03-18, 07:06 AM

Yeah, I kinda think that they already are experimenting with that approach with traits like Powerful Build, Fury of the Small and similar, I wouldn't mind if 6E had more of these instead of +/- to Ability Scores. Maybe more feats that only specific races can pick with options to choose one at first level?

And I totally forgot about -2 on Kobold, poor Kobold :(

The heavy weapons I might have omitted but I feel that could be easily fixed with a feat, I was trying to homebrew one that had it as an option recently.

LudicSavant

2020-03-18, 07:08 AM

Or represent them in more interesting ways than +2s and -1s to attributes

Yeah. It's not like this is unheard of; there are tons of examples of other (often better) ways of differentiating them throughout modern gaming.

OldTrees1

2020-03-18, 07:29 AM

I am glad you are happy.

However, I did like the option of having a 06 to contrast my 16. Although that would not work as well in 5E's skill system.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-18, 07:35 AM

ZorroGames

2020-03-18, 07:47 AM

It is a game. Games have rules. Duh. Home-brew to your heart’s content. I like 5e races just fine. Kobolds are the weakest race physically... fine, I guess, but dumb. Dexterity is king in 5e in many ways. Not a fan of that but it is the rule. AL follows rules, home games follow a different set of rules, those promulgated by the DM. Enjoy more, bitch less.

That said I do not remember 0D&D having penalties but 1974 was a “few years” ago. I need to pull out the original rules and check.

If you PC is “the top of your race gene pool” than yeah penalties make little sense IMNSHO. YMMV.

KorvinStarmast

2020-03-18, 08:01 AM

Everyone might as well just be playing humans in different hats. Yes, that is a perfectly fine way to play the game. :smallcool:

Dr. Cliché

2020-03-18, 08:03 AM

Yes, that is a perfectly fine way to play the game. :smallcool:

I guess if your idea of a fantasy world is a Furry Convention then sure, go nuts.

KorvinStarmast

2020-03-18, 08:10 AM

A 30-pound gnome should not be able to shove a 300-pound orc...
A 3-ft tall halfling should not wield a 12-ft long pike as easily as a dagger (especially when the pike weighs almost as much as the gnome herself) The heavy weapons restrictions makes sense to me.

That said I do not remember 0D&D having penalties but 1974 was a “few years” ago. I need to pull out the original rules and check. The original rules had no racial penalties, that came up in AD&D 1e. AD&D 1e also had gender minimums and maximums that reflected more or less the RL situation where women did not compete against men at the Olympics - that kind of RL verisimilitude - but that's been replace by "the game is make believe, let's not do that anymore" - which works perfectly well.

As to racial penalties: the "racial" penalty in OD&D was that if you were a dwarf, you were a Fighting Man and your level limit was 6. If you were a hobbit (original game, hobbit) your racial penalty was 4th level Fighter. If you were an elf, your racial penalty was "no more than 4th level Fighter, no more than 8th level Magic User".

One of the nicest things about Greyhawk was that "if you are a Thief, you can be of any race and you can go to max level in that class."

If your PC is “the top of your race gene pool” than yeah penalties make little sense IMNSHO. YMMV. Yeah, that too.

1WngdAngel

2020-03-18, 08:22 AM

I like your argument on this and pretty much agree. Though I would prefer ability score caps instead of negative and positive modifiers based on race. So Halflings, Gnomes, and the other small races could only get up to 15 Strength maybe while Goliaths and Loxodon couldn't have below a 10? Just spit balling an idea.

Waazraath

2020-03-18, 08:28 AM

I don't have any problem with ability score penalties. I think it's a bit weird to do away with them, it can damage versimilitude and game / fantasy concepts (big strong orc, small quick halfling). No, not all the races are the same. Some are better in A, others in B. Just like classes. And as long as the system is flexibel enough to accomodate those that want to deviate from the norm (which 5e is), that's absolutely no issue for me.

Dungeon-noob

2020-03-18, 08:32 AM

I mean you can say that, but light weapons are all 2 lbs or less and Heavy are all 6+ lbs. So weight seems to be a factor. Especially since the Lance which is clearly a very large weapon isn't listed as Heavy, and sits on the bottom end of weight for heavy. Some weapons without heavy weigh 6 lbs, but nothing greater than that doesn't have Heavy and nothing lighter does. With one exception on each end.

Greatclub, a giant heavy hunk of wood (or something) isn't heavy. It's both large AND heavy.

Longbow. It only weighs 2 lbs and has Heavy, but would historically have a draw weight of 80+ lbs.

Now this shows that size isn't the determining factor any more than actual weight. Where as weight is more reliable for determination.

All of that said it changes nothing. A small creature wielding a large weapon is not unreasonable if they have the strength to do it. Weapons, especially heavy ones, aren't about graceful precision movements. They are about hitting the right area, really hard while avoiding being hit yourself. A creature strong enough to swing the weapon is just as capable of doing that as a taller one. The weapon is always kept up. Any disadvantage they would have in the fight would not be limited by the size of their weapon, but by their size in general.
There actually is a significant issue with using heavy weapons, even if you have the strength to wield them. This vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t8ZrI5JqCw explains it fairly well. Basically, because the weight relative to the user is much greater then other weapons, the weapons momentum throws you around.

So saying weapons with a high relative weight is much harder and less practical is fairly realistic. Whether that degree of realism is what you want in your game is then up to your group.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-18, 08:48 AM

Longbow. It only weighs 2 lbs and has Heavy, but would historically have a draw weight of 80+ lbs.

Now this shows that size isn't the determining factor any more than actual weight. Where as weight is more reliable for determination.

All of that said it changes nothing. A small creature wielding a large weapon is not unreasonable if they have the strength to do it. Weapons, especially heavy ones, aren't about graceful precision movements. They are about hitting the right area, really hard while avoiding being hit yourself. A creature strong enough to swing the weapon is just as capable of doing that as a taller one. The weapon is always kept up. Any disadvantage they would have in the fight would not be limited by the size of their weapon, but by their size in general.

longbow is typically 60" tall, with a draw length of 30". wielding a bow 2x your height and requiring you to draw well behind your head should be disadvantage in combat.

Pex

2020-03-18, 09:01 AM

In my experience over the years, if racial differences mattered it was expressed through roleplay by the individual player and the gameworld via NPCs and culture. In some campaigns it was a defining feature of the gameworld. In others roleplaying was about Campaign Plot, and the PC's race was irrelevant or flavor text. It is up to the DM to make race matter for the world if that's what he wants. The player can have input if it's a feature of his character he wants to emphasize in his roleplay.

The non-ability score features of races help to distinguish the races via game mechanics. The ability score adjustments do the same but have an extra importance because they affect the math of the game. Anything that affects the d20 roll is a big deal. It makes a difference if you hit or not, make the save or not. Every +1 matters. There's nothing wrong with min-maxing, but because of it that's why you get every halfling is a rogue, every wood elf is a druid or monk, and every half-elf is a bard or warlock. Obviously not literally "every", but when you see the halfling warlock or wood elf barbarian or half-elf cleric that player isn't going for the min-max. Dice rolling for ability scores help not to play the stereotype because if you are lucky enough to roll a 16, 17, 18 you can put it in your class prime and play a race that doesn't give a bump to it. Some will still play the stereotype when the 16 can bump to 18 and so forth.

In 5E specifically the issue is more pronounced because Bounded Accuracy makes a +1 more valuable and its Point Buy implementation is unforgiving. Add in you must choose between an ASI or a Feat then starting with a 16 in your prime is more important if you really want a feat because you need that 18 by 8th level. The math of 5E causes the need. A 15 at 1st level is only fine if the feat you want at 4th level will bump it by 1. Those who don't min-max may not care, but 5E math makes you care. When you only have 14 in your prime at 8th level because you went for more roleplaying choices your lack of success in hitting or bad guys making their saves will be noticeable. I'm personally more sensitive to the matter and see the problem at 4th to 7th level in games I've played where the player only has 14 or 15 in their prime. They're missing a lot. The monsters make the save a lot. 5th level is key because that's when proficiency kicks in. PCs staying at 14 only advance by +1. Bad guys are advancing +2 because their primes increase. You don't need an 18 at 4th level, but if you don't get have it at 8th level the next proficiency increase at 9th level will hurt. More so if you still only have a 14 in your prime.

What about multiclassing? Doing so delays ASI so you can't pump your prime even if you wanted to. True, but you're getting versatility/synergy that makes up the difference.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-18, 09:07 AM

heavyfuel

2020-03-18, 09:21 AM

I watched some video on youtube I will not name where suddenly the author goes on a tangent how 5e racial stats are annoying him because small races do not get a Strength penalty and it is somehow unrealistic that on average Halfling or Goblin will be as strong as Human or Loxodon.

It may be my experience with 3.5, but I have nothing but contempt for this line of thinking. It locked races into stereotypes and made it outright impossible to try to play a concept that could break out of the mold.

In 3.5, if your build breaks because you're taking -2 to an ability score, then your build would suck regardless. In a system where there's no cap on how high your abilities can go, a -2 should be nothing. Getting -2 to Charisma meant maybe 1 fewer spell per day and a 5% chance of an enemy making their save (they needed a 17, now they need 16, wow, such difference)

It is stupid that the average halfling is as strong as the average human. Just like it's stupid that the strongest hafling and the strongest orc are equally as strong.

Plus it's not like you can just as easily break the mold in 5e. If I wanted to play a Halfling with a Greatsword, I'd take a minor penalty to my atk and dmg over Disadvantage on every single attack roll any day of the week.

Having maxxed out ability scores is, and has always been, overrated. You want to break the mold, then break the mold, but accept that some races are naturally better at what you're doing.

It does no such thing. The game never tries to force you to do anything.

If you're using Point Buy, you're a Half-Orc Sorcerer. You put an '8' in STR, 'cause obviously...Now it's 10/0, and you no longer have a penalty to get out of Grapples and Restrains. Though if you're a Wizard, there are probably better ways to get out of Grapples/Restrains...But not always.

You're an Elf Fighter, wearing full plate, just like in Lord of the Rings. You put a 10 in DEX so your Initiative doesn't suck. Just kidding, it's 12, now your initiative is +1. Hell, you make your dump stat DEX, 'cause you're wearing full plate, so DEX is pointless. Oh wait, now it's 10. So no penalty on initiative. Slam more points into CON, because you can.

Yes. Playing a certain race gives you higher maximums, and that's great if you're trying to optimise your character.
But playing a certain race also gives you higher minimums, which essentially gives you a free dump stat, that isn't a dump stat. Which is great if you're not necessarily trying optimise your character, you're just trying to make it so that it isn't terrible in one aspect.

Minority opinion here.

A 30-pound gnome should not be able to shove a 300-pound orc...
A 3-ft tall halfling should not wield a 12-ft long pike as easily as a dagger (especially when the pike weighs almost as much as the gnome herself)

I think they didn't go far enough with the racial differences...
I like the Shadowrun model of different attribute maximums

Couldn't have said it better myself

LtPowers

2020-03-18, 10:09 AM

I find that 5e does strike a good balance between making unusual builds possible without making them common. That's the sweet spot for me.

I agree racial ability penalties suck. Made Dwarf Bards really hard to pull off in 3.5. Now you can do it, just have to work a little harder at it. That's fine.

I don't mind a rare ability penalty like we have now. There's a reason Kobolds don't often go adventuring, but if you're bound and determined to be that one that breaks the mold, you can do it.

Powers &8^]

Willie the Duck

2020-03-18, 10:23 AM

Or represent them in more interesting ways than +2s and -1s to attributes

The original rules had no racial penalties, that came up in AD&D 1e.

The non-ability score features of races help to distinguish the races via game mechanics. The ability score adjustments do the same but have an extra importance because they affect the math of the game.
…
In 5E specifically the issue is more pronounced because Bounded Accuracy makes a +1 more valuable and its Point Buy implementation is unforgiving.
A thought combo-ing off these points.
oD&D also didn’t have a huge number of benefits for high attributes. A Str10 fighting man was perfectly viable (literally the only penalty compared to an 18 str was a slightly slower XP progression). AD&D did this weird thing where an 18 in a stat (or 18/76+ for Str, which was an additional weirdness) made a huge difference, but a 9 str and a 14 str were roughly the same.
5e has made the value of stats very significant (and it and 3e have made even off-stats have very specific, defined values. In 3e any skills-based class can’t neglect Int regardless of whether they will focus on Int casting or Int-based skills. In 5e dumping Wis is something one does at one’s great peril). If one uses arrays, PCs stats have started to look very similar (ex. All Dex-based fighters tend to have Dex first, then usually Con, and then Wis. Str-based fighters swap out Str for Dex and then there’s some variety in that Dex for initiative and saves is useful enough to give Wis a run for its money as 3rd place).

My thinking is thus: +2s and -1s aren’t interesting, but they are increasingly important, and as they have become more important, they have started to vary less and less. Instead of getting rid of racial stat bonuses, why not just get rid of/minimize the value of stats in general? Maybe just take the +3 you were going to get by starting out with a race optimized for your class (and thus starting with a 16-17 in the stat) and roll that into the class itself. Leave stats in the game (if at all) only for things like skills. It solves the same issue of not being able to make a Halfling barbarian (they can do fine with a -1 or -2 in Str, relative to humans, so long as it doesn’t influence the d20 roll that a barbarian most often makes, the to-hit and damage rolls), while at the same time meaning that people can actually vary their stats around again a little bit.

Guy Lombard-O

2020-03-18, 10:29 AM

Minority opinion here.

A 30-pound gnome should not be able to shove a 300-pound orc...
A 3-ft tall halfling should not wield a 12-ft long pike as easily as a dagger (especially when the pike weighs almost as much as the gnome herself)

I think they didn't go far enough with the racial differences...
I like the Shadowrun model of different attribute maximums

Agreed.

I get that it's a game, and that too much verisimilitude is neither necessary or even advisable. It's a fantasy game with dragons and magic.

But at least for me, some level of verisimilitude is required for the whole thing to even function. It's the presence of a base level of verisimilitude in most things that makes the game relatable enough to accept the more unrealistic aspects like magic and monsters. I suspect that the required level is a bit different for everybody (although I suspect that it's why some folks like playing humans in D&D). But for me, I'd prefer to have ability score maximums and minimums (not penalties, and possibly not bonuses) for the races. A range of 3-20 for everybody is fine for a balanced game, and I'm enjoying playing the game as written. But my preference would be that no small races can have a Strength above 10 (with a waiver for heavy armor movement and multi-classing), and that Goliaths and Firbolgs can have a max Str of 22. Higher Dex maximums for the quick/nimble races would make sense as well.

Gotta admit, when I see the 20 Str gnome, a 3' tall, 30 lb. elderly man with a (non-magical?) 300 lb. carrying capacity, it kills the willing suspension of disbelief for me a bit. I mean, if that's what gnomes are supposed to be in the world, insanely strong miniature humanoids, then okay I guess. But that's not even what they're supposed to be, is it?

And if we're really just chucking the whole size/mass/strength equation out the window, then why are any of the creatures in the world size/strength proportional? Why bother making other creatures like giants and ogres stronger just because they're larger, but not the characters the players are inhabiting?

LudicSavant

2020-03-18, 10:51 AM

Minority opinion here.

A 30-pound gnome should not be able to shove a 300-pound orc...
A 3-ft tall halfling should not wield a 12-ft long pike as easily as a dagger (especially when the pike weighs almost as much as the gnome herself)

I think they didn't go far enough with the racial differences...
I like the Shadowrun model of different attribute maximums

I think the 5e's take on attribute modifiers basically make neither camp as happy as they could be. It doesn't create that in-world verisimilitude of differences between a gnome and an orc (basically everyone's within +/-1 of a human, it's negligible fluffwise). And it still disincentivizes the "wrong" race/class mix (because it definitely isn't negligible for overall optimization). They should at least pick one side or the other.

With the system we have, unlocking racial ability modifiers is a much easier tweak than actually creating any sort of sensible fluff differences in performance based on attribute scores. We live in a world where a Killer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7WGIH35JBE) Whale (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/24/article-2377154-1AF41277000005DC-941_964x778.jpg) has 19 Strength and where horses can't run as fast as real life humans. And even if you upped racial modifiers to huge numbers like +8, you'd still have gnomes able to shove orcs, because attribute differences just don't really do the thing you want them to in 5e, you'd have to do it with other mechanics. You'd have to overhaul an awful lot of the system to make a dent in that whole issue. And while I certainly wouldn't mind seeing those things change, it's out of the scope of most homebrew.

By contrast, saying that your Half-Orc can just put their racial stat mods into +2/+1 to whatever is an easy change. Pretty much the only cases you need to watch out for are the few races that deviate from the standard +2/+1 model. So I think that's the main reason you'll see people talking about that more than the former option.

Sorinth

2020-03-18, 11:07 AM

A thought combo-ing off these points.
oD&D also didn’t have a huge number of benefits for high attributes. A Str10 fighting man was perfectly viable (literally the only penalty compared to an 18 str was a slightly slower XP progression). AD&D did this weird thing where an 18 in a stat (or 18/76+ for Str, which was an additional weirdness) made a huge difference, but a 9 str and a 14 str were roughly the same.
5e has made the value of stats very significant (and it and 3e have made even off-stats have very specific, defined values. In 3e any skills-based class can’t neglect Int regardless of whether they will focus on Int casting or Int-based skills. In 5e dumping Wis is something one does at one’s great peril). If one uses arrays, PCs stats have started to look very similar (ex. All Dex-based fighters tend to have Dex first, then usually Con, and then Wis. Str-based fighters swap out Str for Dex and then there’s some variety in that Dex for initiative and saves is useful enough to give Wis a run for its money as 3rd place).

My thinking is thus: +2s and -1s aren’t interesting, but they are increasingly important, and as they have become more important, they have started to vary less and less. Instead of getting rid of racial stat bonuses, why not just get rid of/minimize the value of stats in general? Maybe just take the +3 you were going to get by starting out with a race optimized for your class (and thus starting with a 16-17 in the stat) and roll that into the class itself. Leave stats in the game (if at all) only for things like skills. It solves the same issue of not being able to make a Halfling barbarian (they can do fine with a -1 or -2 in Str, relative to humans, so long as it doesn’t influence the d20 roll that a barbarian most often makes, the to-hit and damage rolls), while at the same time meaning that people can actually vary their stats around again a little bit.

I think you've identified the problem, the stat has too big of an impact. Even a level 20 fighter has almost half his attack bonus coming from his inherent strength. That's non-sensical, put a veteran solider up against a body builder whose never held a sword before and the soldier should make mince meat out of the guy because the training/skills the soldier learnt are way more valuable then raw strength.

Perhaps the best way to handle it is remove the attack bonus from that comes from the stat and only allow the damage bonus. ACs everywhere would have to be readjusted, but it would make the Halfling/Gnome fighters perfectly viable, they'll do slightly less damage then the equivalent human but that seems perfectly normal/acceptable.

MaxWilson

2020-03-18, 11:08 AM

As far as I know the maximum is the same for everyone.
Races only change your level 1-3 stats options(level 4 is an ASI) and the minimum is the relevant abilities.

Races like Goliath and Half Orc would be far more interesting if they also increased your maximum.

But at least for me, some level of verisimilitude is required for the whole thing to even function. It's the presence of a base level of verisimilitude in most things that makes the game relatable enough to accept the more unrealistic aspects like magic and monsters. I suspect that the required level is a bit different for everybody (although I suspect that it's why some folks like playing humans in D&D). But for me, I'd prefer to have ability score maximums and minimums (not penalties, and possibly not bonuses) for the races. A range of 3-20 for everybody is fine for a balanced game, and I'm enjoying playing the game as written. But my preference would be that no small races can have a Strength above 10 (with a waiver for heavy armor movement and multi-classing), and that Goliaths and Firbolgs can have a max Str of 22. Higher Dex maximums for the quick/nimble races would make sense as well.

Gotta admit, when I see the 20 Str gnome, a 3' tall, 30 lb. elderly man with a (non-magical?) 300 lb. carrying capacity, it kills the willing suspension of disbelief for me a bit. I mean, if that's what gnomes are supposed to be in the world, insanely strong miniature humanoids, then okay I guess. But that's not even what they're supposed to be, is it?

And if we're really just chucking the whole size/mass/strength equation out the window, then why are any of the creatures in the world size/strength proportional? Why bother making other creatures like giants and ogres stronger just because they're larger, but not the characters the players are inhabiting?

+1. Quoted for truth.

Really the only useful thing the current racial mods do is make playing against type (Str 20 elderly gnomes, Dex 20 dwarven sharpshooters, Int 20 kobolds) rarer. And for some people that's a bug, not a feature, of course.

Sorinth

2020-03-18, 11:12 AM

I mean you can say that, but light weapons are all 2 lbs or less and Heavy are all 6+ lbs. So weight seems to be a factor. Especially since the Lance which is clearly a very large weapon isn't listed as Heavy, and sits on the bottom end of weight for heavy. Some weapons without heavy weigh 6 lbs, but nothing greater than that doesn't have Heavy and nothing lighter does. With one exception on each end.

Greatclub, a giant heavy hunk of wood (or something) isn't heavy. It's both large AND heavy.

Longbow. It only weighs 2 lbs and has Heavy, but would historically have a draw weight of 80+ lbs.

Now this shows that size isn't the determining factor any more than actual weight. Where as weight is more reliable for determination.

All of that said it changes nothing. A small creature wielding a large weapon is not unreasonable if they have the strength to do it. Weapons, especially heavy ones, aren't about graceful precision movements. They are about hitting the right area, really hard while avoiding being hit yourself. A creature strong enough to swing the weapon is just as capable of doing that as a taller one. The weapon is always kept up. Any disadvantage they would have in the fight would not be limited by the size of their weapon, but by their size in general.

I will say it's always annoyed me how the Longbow doesn't have a strength requirement similar to plate. Everytime I see that str 8 character using a longbow it annoys me. IRL Longbowman were among the strongest people out there, they had huge upper body strength because pulling that 80+ lbs of weight over and over again is strength.

Dr. Cliché

2020-03-18, 11:15 AM

I will say it's always annoyed me how the Longbow doesn't have a strength requirement similar to plate. Everytime I see that str 8 character using a longbow it annoys me. IRL Longbowman were among the strongest people out there, they had huge upper body strength because pulling that 80+ lbs of weight over and over again is strength.

Yeah, Longbows really should have some sort of minimum strength requirement.

This would make give a little boost to strength and would also give Shortbows more of a function, rather than just being 'inferior longbows' like they are currently.

Morty

2020-03-18, 12:11 PM

It seems like a legacy of past editions, stripped of its original context and purpose, living on as a sacred cow that no longer accomplishes anything positive, other than providing the warm fuzzies of familiarity.

I agree wholeheartedly, but if we start pointing that out in 5E, we'll be here a while.

More to the point...

My thinking is thus: +2s and -1s aren’t interesting, but they are increasingly important, and as they have become more important, they have started to vary less and less. Instead of getting rid of racial stat bonuses, why not just get rid of/minimize the value of stats in general? Maybe just take the +3 you were going to get by starting out with a race optimized for your class (and thus starting with a 16-17 in the stat) and roll that into the class itself. Leave stats in the game (if at all) only for things like skills. It solves the same issue of not being able to make a Halfling barbarian (they can do fine with a -1 or -2 in Str, relative to humans, so long as it doesn’t influence the d20 roll that a barbarian most often makes, the to-hit and damage rolls), while at the same time meaning that people can actually vary their stats around again a little bit.

...D&D attributes just get in the way in general and there needs to be less emphasis on them. They mostly just serve as a clumsy attempt at realism.

Willie the Duck

2020-03-18, 12:27 PM

Yeah, Longbows really should have some sort of minimum strength requirement.

Yes and no. It's entirely possible to make a longbow usable by a weakling (although probably not a halfling, as the height issues mentioned above are real). You can find low poundage longbows for sale at any ye olde ren faire in your local area, and if the iconic imagery of IRL Longbowman is to be believed, people started training to use them well before puberty (and thus there historically must have been bows for people already tall enough to have graduated from shortbow, but not yet strong enough to be what we'd think of as str 10+.

The entire long/short dichotomy is a gamist contrivance. There were short bows and long bows; self bows and composite bows; straight, reflex, and recurve bows; war bows and hunting bow -- all of which could be more or less deadly based on draw weight (a separate, if not unrelated, factor).

AD&D did it fairly well, with Dex adding to-hit, and Str adding to damage, but only in a bow rated for a given strength. I understand why they changed it (in terms of role protection, and also why suddenly hew to realism for bows when everything else isn't and realism isn't a clear design goal in the first place), but I do miss it. That is in contradiction to my previous assertion that attributes being an increasing focus of combat prowess hasn't necessarily been good for the game. Both, I feel, are valid points.

More to the point...
...D&D attributes just get in the way in general and there needs to be less emphasis on them. They mostly just serve as a clumsy attempt at realism.

I feel that they are mostly a really feel good thing to get (rolling an 18 felt really good, especially in the 3d6 era. For some reason moreso that the originally intended primary metric of success: advancement in level) and that's why they have continually increased in relevance. I think it might have become a bit of a poisonous development, however, as various stats have gone from feel-good to necessary.

patchyman

2020-03-18, 12:46 PM

Segev

2020-03-18, 12:55 PM

To be fair, having stats support stereotypes also adds verisimilitude behind WHY those stereotypes exist. Playing an orc sorcerer or a kobold barbarian is less of an iconoclastic defiance of stereotype than it is asking why nobody else is doing it if both are just as good as playing an orc barbarian or a kobold sorcerer.

I do like the removal of negatives for racial mods; it makes it feel "better" psychologically. Like your race is just improving things.

That said, my only problem with kobolds having -2 strength is that the rest of the race doesn't seem...good enough to warrant it. Why do they have it? Is "grovel and plead" really that good?

Evaar

2020-03-18, 12:56 PM

The base argument seems to be 'every race should be able to excel at everything equally'.

In which case, why even bother with races at all? They clearly aren't representing anything.

Everyone might as well just be playing humans in different hats.

This is a straw man argument, because what's being argued against (although not by the OP, but by subsequent posts) is not racial options. They're arguing only against ability score bonuses and penalties.

Would you make the argument that an Aarakocra is the same thing as a Wood Elf is the same thing as a Ghostwise Halfing is the same thing as a Kenku?
Or that a Tiefling is the same thing as a Yuan-Ti?
Or that a Drow Elf is the same thing as an Eladrin, even?

All of those examples have identical ability score increases. So how are they different? If they are different despite identical ability score increases, what value do we get out of all of those examples making suboptimal Barbarians?

Sorinth

2020-03-18, 12:57 PM

Yes and no. It's entirely possible to make a longbow usable by a weakling (although probably not a halfling, as the height issues mentioned above are real). You can find low poundage longbows for sale at any ye olde ren faire in your local area, and if the iconic imagery of IRL Longbowman is to be believed, people started training to use them well before puberty (and thus there historically must have been bows for people already tall enough to have graduated from shortbow, but not yet strong enough to be what we'd think of as str 10+.

The entire long/short dichotomy is a gamist contrivance. There were short bows and long bows; self bows and composite bows; straight, reflex, and recurve bows; war bows and hunting bow -- all of which could be more or less deadly based on draw weight (a separate, if not unrelated, factor).

AD&D did it fairly well, with Dex adding to-hit, and Str adding to damage, but only in a bow rated for a given strength. I understand why they changed it (in terms of role protection, and also why suddenly hew to realism for bows when everything else isn't and realism isn't a clear design goal in the first place), but I do miss it. That is in contradiction to my previous assertion that attributes being an increasing focus of combat prowess hasn't necessarily been good for the game. Both, I feel, are valid points.

I feel that they are mostly a really feel good thing to get (rolling an 18 felt really good, especially in the 3d6 era. For some reason moreso that the originally intended primary metric of success: advancement in level) and that's why they have continually increased in relevance. I think it might have become a bit of a poisonous development, however, as various stats have gone from feel-good to necessary.

Yeah you can different weighted bows, but it should directly impact the damage dealt. Like you said I can understand why they dropped the realism in favour of simplicity, and honestly I'm not sure I would want to add those extra rules for bow weights anyways, but adding a str requirement like they do for plate wouldn't have complicated things and would've kept up the realism.

However the main benefit I see is it would provide some interesting choices.
Shortbow - Low investment but low damage
Longbow - Invest in a typical dump stat but higher damage
Crossbows - Low investment, high damage but limited by loading property which might mean a high investment if needing the feat.

patchyman

2020-03-18, 01:11 PM

Man on Fire

2020-03-18, 01:16 PM

Dr. Cliché

2020-03-18, 01:39 PM

Yes and no. It's entirely possible to make a longbow usable by a weakling (although probably not a halfling, as the height issues mentioned above are real). You can find low poundage longbows for sale at any ye olde ren faire in your local area, and if the iconic imagery of IRL Longbowman is to be believed, people started training to use them well before puberty (and thus there historically must have been bows for people already tall enough to have graduated from shortbow, but not yet strong enough to be what we'd think of as str 10+.

Granted, but a 'scale' of longbows wouldn't really fit with D&D's 'standardised' weapons (where all longbows have the same range and damage).

I suppose you could have a wider range of bows (rather than just short and long), where damage and range increases relative to their strength requirement?

This is a straw man argument, because what's being argued against (although not by the OP, but by subsequent posts) is not racial options. They're arguing only against ability score bonuses and penalties.

Clearly you have no clue what a strawman is because the way I summarised it is exactly what the OP was asking for.

Would you make the argument that an Aarakocra is the same thing as a Wood Elf is the same thing as a Ghostwise Halfing is the same thing as a Kenku?
Or that a Tiefling is the same thing as a Yuan-Ti?
Or that a Drow Elf is the same thing as an Eladrin, even?

All of those examples have identical ability score increases. So how are they different? If they are different despite identical ability score increases, what value do we get out of all of those examples making suboptimal Barbarians?

Well that depends, doesn't it? If a Halfling is physically and mentally identical to an Orc, and both are physically and mentally identical to Yuan-ti, one might reasonably wonder what the point is of having different races. Because their physical characteristics bear no resemblance to their physical appearance. Hence, it seems what a lot of people want is just to play palette-swapped humans.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-18, 01:50 PM

To be honest, an average human shouldn't be able to do either one of those things either. Part of D&D is that you are playing an extraordinary hero, not an average joe. People don't say this is "fantasy superheroes" for nothing. And if someone wants to play a Gnome or Hafling who is a pint-size powerhouse, why shouldn't they?

i can and do regularly throw the 300lb guy in my class.
i can and do train with a long bo staff.

and as to "why shouldn't they?" ... as stated elsewhere, it doesn't feel right, breaks immersion.
we expect big things to hit harder than little things. if it doesn't, we want a reason... magic guantlets, is a good reason. cuz they do, but fairies don't is not.
clearly this is opinion.

This is a straw man argument, because what's being argued against (although not by the OP, but by subsequent posts) is not racial options. They're arguing only against ability score bonuses and penalties.
you are okay with saying the average halfling is luckier than humans, but opposed to saying the average halfling is nimbler that humans. seems arbitrary to me.

False God

2020-03-18, 02:02 PM

Totally agree with you. In fact, me and my friends have gone a step further and did away with racial stat bonuses as well. Every character just gets a free 3 ASI points to spend. It is completely silly that the game tries to force you to be a pansy prancy elf or a buff and gruff half orc. If that's what I want to play, then I'll decide that.

Ooooo, I like this! I've been looking for a way to remove stat bonuses from races and this sounds good.

Someone wants to play a smart, scrawny orc, or a rough-and-tumble elf, more power to 'em.

Willie the Duck

2020-03-18, 02:19 PM

Clearly you have no clue what a strawman is because the way I summarised it is exactly what the OP was asking for.

You stated, "The base argument seems to be 'every race should be able to excel at everything equally'." That is not what the argument (people were arguing against racial stat bonuses and penalties, not that they should excel at everything equally). You were very successfully rebuking arguments other than the ones people were making. Seems like they got this whole strawman concept down pretty well. You made a flippant, shorthand remark that probably doesn't define the whole of your argument, and got called on it. There's no reason to get snarky with someone for calling you out, particularly when you can just clarify the intent of your position.

you are okay with saying the average halfling is luckier than humans, but opposed to saying the average halfling is nimbler that humans. seems arbitrary to me.

Honestly, it is*. But it is still that for which people have argued. Saying that they've argued for something else, instead of the arbitrary thing they did argue, doesn't serve any real purpose.
*The reason why my preferred solution would be merely to de-emphasis the nimbler stat.

alchahest

2020-03-18, 02:32 PM

my preference would be non-attribute differences. Even with humans.

Drop all attribute bonuses from Race, and replace them (where necessary) with flavourful other abilities. in most cases this would be as simple as a a small boost, as most races exist with a +2/+1, but some outliers have +2/+2 or +2/+1/+1 - of course each one would need to be looked at, but some examples:

Humans: use Variant Humans, but 1 language, 1 skill, one feat.

High Elf: gain spellcasting similar to tieflings - you choose a wizard cantrip, then at 3rd, you can cast detect magic as a ritual, and at 5th, you learn and can cast one 2nd level wizard spell of your choice 1/long.

Wood Elf: change the +5 movement into +10, and you aren't affected by natural rough terrain.

Drow: Your Superior Darkvision ALSO lets you see colour.

Half Orc: Change Relentless endurance - When you use relentless endurance you up to half of your total hit dice and heal for that much. 1/long rest.

(these have not had a balance pass of any kind, just off the dome here)

The trick with this is then give each class a primary attribute as in the example below:

Artificer: Int
Barbarian: Str or Con
Bard: Cha
Cleric: Wis
Druid: Wis
Fighter: Str or Dex
Monk: Dex or Wis
Paladin: Str or Cha
Ranger: Dex or Wis
Rogue: Dex
Sorcerer: Cha
Warlock: Cha
Wizard: Int

When you select a class at first level, you add +2 to your chosen primary attribute. You may then add +1 to any OTHER attribute.

Morty

2020-03-18, 02:43 PM

I feel that they are mostly a really feel good thing to get (rolling an 18 felt really good, especially in the 3d6 era. For some reason moreso that the originally intended primary metric of success: advancement in level) and that's why they have continually increased in relevance. I think it might have become a bit of a poisonous development, however, as various stats have gone from feel-good to necessary.

It's probably a bit of both. The deep desire of all gamers to add numbers together plus an attempt to realistically model capabilities. But I've come to realize attributes can't do the latter, no matter the system. So adding that together just ends up with a very awkward... formality, more than anything. You fill out the attributes that your class needs, with some minor variance.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-18, 03:40 PM

you are okay with saying the average halfling is luckier than humans, but opposed to saying the average halfling is nimbler that humans. seems arbitrary to me.

Honestly, it is*. But it is still that for which people have argued. Saying that they've argued for something else, instead of the arbitrary thing they did argue, doesn't serve any real purpose.
*The reason why my preferred solution would be merely to de-emphasis the nimbler stat.

but that goes to it, why de-emphasize the nimbler stat? isn't nimble as much halfling as lucky is?
isn't strong orc as key to orc identity is being hard to take down?

Dr. Cliché

2020-03-18, 03:49 PM

You stated, "The base argument seems to be 'every race should be able to excel at everything equally'." That is not what the argument (people were arguing against racial stat bonuses and penalties, not that they should excel at everything equally).

No, that was exactly the argument. Because the entire reason they didn't want stat penalties was that so that some races weren't worse at certain classes than others. Ergo, the argument is that the OP wants all races to excel equally at each class. QED.

You were very successfully rebuking arguments other than the ones people were making.

I addressed the argument being made. {Scrubbed}

Seems like they got this whole strawman concept down pretty well. You made a flippant, shorthand remark that probably doesn't define the whole of your argument, and got called on it.

No, I made an accurate observation {Scrubbed}

There's no reason to get snarky with someone for calling you out, particularly when you can just clarify the intent of your position.

{Scrubbed}

I mean, if I might turn this around, you could have politely asked me to clarify my position, instead you chose to cry strawman.

But since you asked (albeit in an unnecessarily roundabout manner), my position is that either people want to play races that are distinct in non-cosmetic ways or else they want to play "races" that are little more than humans in different hats (or costumes). To use the example from before, halfling and orcs exhibit substantially different physical characteristics. Put simply, a halfling simply should not be able to even come close to an orc when it comes to physical strength. And this should be represented in some way in game terms. If humans represent the baseline, one would expect halflings to have a strength penalty to represent their small size (and probably for orcs to have a strength bonus to represent their greater size/muscle mass). Hell, I'm actually inclined to agree with a couple of posters above when they said that size penalties have, if anything, been relatively minor (compared to what you'd realistically expect for child-sized races).

My point was that when you start removing all ability penalties, regardless of the physical characteristics of the different races, then you might as well just be playing humans in different costumes. Because you want to play races that are supposed to be drastically different from humans, yet you don't want those differences to actually be represented in any meaningful way.

MaxWilson

2020-03-18, 03:55 PM

No, I made an accurate observation {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Just want to note here that Evaar and Willie the Duck aren't the same person.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-18, 04:01 PM

Just want to note here that Evaar and Willie the Duck aren't the same person.

they are not, but they both hold that some features of a race are core and others are not without an explanation why
and both suggested that pointing this out was a strawman argument.

MaxWilson

2020-03-18, 04:33 PM

they are not, but they both hold that some features of a race are core and others are not without an explanation why
and both suggested that pointing this out was a strawman argument.

FWIW I think that Willie the Duck's post #49 was jumping to incorrect conclusions about Dr. Cliche's argument. It wasn't right for him to accuse Dr. Cliche of being flippant. But he's still not the same person as Evaar and I didn't want Dr. Cliche to continue unaware of that relevant fact.

JackPhoenix

2020-03-18, 04:59 PM

Yeah, Longbows really should have some sort of minimum strength requirement.

This would make give a little boost to strength and would also give Shortbows more of a function, rather than just being 'inferior longbows' like they are currently.

Interestingly enough, there's "oversized longow" in W:DH, that requires Str 18 to use and adds Str instead of Dex to damage, and can't be wielded by small creatures at all. Also does 2d6 base damage.

I've done the later by giving Heavy weapons disadvantage when attacking from mounts. Niche, but it's there. Also disadvantage to non-light weapons during grappling (to both sides of the grapple).

MaxWilson

2020-03-18, 05:34 PM

I've done the later by giving Heavy weapons disadvantage when attacking from mounts. Niche, but it's there. Also disadvantage to non-light weapons during grappling (to both sides of the grapple).

Interesting in principle. Do you tend to give monsters like Githyanki and Gloomstalkers a bunch of extra, light weapons in addition to their main weapons to make up for this, or is grappling just really good against those monsters?

JackPhoenix

2020-03-18, 06:04 PM

Interesting in principle. Do you tend to give monsters like Githyanki and Gloomstalkers a bunch of extra, light weapons in addition to their main weapons to make up for this, or is grappling just really good against those monsters?

Humanoid opponents usually have varied equipment, daggers (it's got utility use beyond just fighting) or similar sidearms aren't uncommon. They also may or may not have skill proficiencies not listed in the "official" stat block. As a side note, I don't use Githyanki or many other races, as I dislike having a crapload of sapient humanoid races in one setting, though I do tend to recycle stat blocks to serve my needs.

MaxWilson

2020-03-18, 06:56 PM

Humanoid opponents usually have varied equipment, daggers (it's got utility use beyond just fighting) or similar sidearms aren't uncommon. They also may or may not have skill proficiencies not listed in the "official" stat block. As a side note, I don't use Githyanki or many other races, as I dislike having a crapload of sapient humanoid races in one setting, though I do tend to recycle stat blocks to serve my needs.

Do you have giants, and if so do they wield giant-but-light daggers?

Evaar

2020-03-18, 08:10 PM

you are okay with saying the average halfling is luckier than humans, but opposed to saying the average halfling is nimbler that humans. seems arbitrary to me.

It would be arbitrary if I was saying that, but I'm not - which is why I say that's a straw man argument.

I'm saying that +2 dex is the least interesting and most mechanically restrictive way to represent that a halfling is nimbler than a human.

Other things that could be offered to represent nimbleness:
An initiative bonus
Free proficiency in stealth, acrobatics, or sleight of hand
A damage bonus to finesse weapons
Advantage on certain nimbleness checks like Dexterity saving throws or rolls to escape grappling

Just off the top of my head. You can give them situational advantages that represent greater nimbleness without just mathematically disadvantaging them if they're playing a class that doesn't prioritize Dexterity. A Barbarian would enjoy all of those benefits (although I think the advantage on dex saving throws is redundant for them, but you get my point) and a Halfling arguably makes quite a good Wizard with that initiative bonus given its relative value to control-based builds. But they don't have any specific bonuses to spellcasting, maybe Elves do have a bonus that makes them more of an obvious choice as a Wizard.

You can still support the flavor of the various races, but avoid punishing players for playing against type.

Again, what makes a better Archer Samurai Fighter - an Aarakocra or a Wood Elf? The answer is that it really depends on what you want it to do, both will be very good at it. So why can't a Half-Orc be good at it for his own reasons?

EDIT: Also note that I offered a damage bonus to finesse weapons, but did specify the bonus applies to attacks using Dexterity. That was intentional so that a Halfling Barbarian could still dual wield scimitars and get full benefits.

Pex

2020-03-18, 09:02 PM

But since you asked (albeit in an unnecessarily roundabout manner), my position is that either people want to play races that are distinct in non-cosmetic ways or else they want to play "races" that are little more than humans in different hats (or costumes). To use the example from before, halfling and orcs exhibit substantially different physical characteristics. Put simply, a halfling simply should not be able to even come close to an orc when it comes to physical strength. And this should be represented in some way in game terms. If humans represent the baseline, one would expect halflings to have a strength penalty to represent their small size (and probably for orcs to have a strength bonus to represent their greater size/muscle mass). Hell, I'm actually inclined to agree with a couple of posters above when they said that size penalties have, if anything, been relatively minor (compared to what you'd realistically expect for child-sized races).

My point was that when you start removing all ability penalties, regardless of the physical characteristics of the different races, then you might as well just be playing humans in different costumes. Because you want to play races that are supposed to be drastically different from humans, yet you don't want those differences to actually be represented in any meaningful way.

The other side of the coin is some people want halfling barbarians and half orc wizards to exist. Of course nothing is stopping a player from playing one, but if there are penalties to the relevant prime such a thing is highly discouraged. Whether that's a bug or feature is the original argument. Not wanting the penalty is not the same as wanting a bonus. The floating +2/+1 idea gives you humans in different hats because then all barbarians will have 16 ST regardless of race by paying for the 14 and getting bumped. If a player is willing to accept a 14 ST halfling barbarian while the half orc has 16, this other side of the coin person would rather the halfling player paid for the 14 rather than paying for a 16 to get a 14. He's not bothered the half orc paid for 14 and got 16 from the racial bump. You're discouraged of the idea of a halfling player paying for the 16 and getting it. You can't in 5E Point Buy but illustrating the point since the overall topic is edition agnostic.

People who aren't bothered all barbarians have 16 ST regardless of race because of the floating +2/+1 want the racial differences be defined by other means. To reflect strength difference this is where halflings must use small weapons while half orcs could use larger than normal weapons. For that player who wants his halfing barbarian to wield a greatsword nothing wrong with the game saying tough, you can't.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-18, 10:41 PM

this is long, but you packed a lot into that post.

It would be arbitrary if I was saying that, but I'm not - which is why I say that's a straw man argument.
dude, your first contribution to this thread was to attack Cliche's argument as a strawman.
you didn't say describe how to you would replace a +2 dex until after you attacked....

Cliche summarized the OP's post.
The OP is annoyed that his gnome will not be as strong as an orc at level 1.

will never be as good at some things as Human or a race who was supposed to be good at it instead.
So replacing the orc's +2 Str with a different Strong ability and not giving it to the gnome means the orc is still "stronger", and not satisfy the OP.
The OP wants the same fighting capability in a gnome skin.
This is exactly what Cliche addressed; therefore, this is not a strawman.

I'm saying that +2 dex is the least interesting and most mechanically restrictive way to represent that a halfling is nimbler than a human.
i disagree that it is mechanically restrictive - a +2 dex represents a +1 on the attack die. a 5% improvement.
I rarely play level 1 PCs with a 16 primary stat, i am not restricted by a +4 toHit instead of a +5 toHit

Other things that could be offered to represent nimbleness:
snip

yes, sure.
but should a typical halfling be as strong as a typical orc? yes or no. this is an opinion answer and there is no wrong answer here, but
if you feel an orc should be stronger then Str is the attribute the represents strength.
if not, then why should an orc have any features that make "stronger" than a halfling?

You can still support the flavor of the various races, but avoid punishing players for playing against type.
Giving a +2 to an orc is not punishing the halfling.

Again, what makes a better Archer Samurai Fighter - an Aarakocra or a Wood Elf? The answer is that it really depends on what you want it to do, both will be very good at it. So why can't a Half-Orc be good at it for his own reasons?
i completely agree with this statement.
a half-orc can be a great samurai fighter or even cleric. Othal was a great cleric for his own reasons... his wisdom was lower than the optimized cleric, but Grummsh was pleased with him, so was i.

JackPhoenix

2020-03-19, 06:13 AM

It would be arbitrary if I was saying that, but I'm not - which is why I say that's a straw man argument.

I'm saying that +2 dex is the least interesting and most mechanically restrictive way to represent that a halfling is nimbler than a human.

Other things that could be offered to represent nimbleness:
An initiative bonus
Free proficiency in stealth, acrobatics, or sleight of hand
A damage bonus to finesse weapons
Advantage on certain nimbleness checks like Dexterity saving throws or rolls to escape grappling

Just off the top of my head. You can give them situational advantages that represent greater nimbleness without just mathematically disadvantaging them if they're playing a class that doesn't prioritize Dexterity.

And yet, +2 Dex gives you bonus to initiative, Stealth, Acrobatics and Sleight of Hands (though not proficiency), to damage with finesse and ranged weapons (and to attack with them too), and to Dex saves and other Dex checks (though not advantage). All at once. It gives that bonus to everyone, regardless if they prioritize Dex or not.

Do you have giants, and if so do they wield giant-but-light daggers?

Yes, though the PCs haven't fought them. While I haven't thought of such circumstances, I would rule that the disadvantage doesn't apply if there's more than 2 size categories of difference between opponents. Besides, giants are too big to be grappled by medium PC races, and when they grapple something of that size, they are more inclined to use it as thrown weapon than to stab it with a dagger (the giants that exist in the setting I run currently.... which is warhammer fantasy, because the players were interested in warhammer game, but half of them weren't willing to learn new system, so I'm stuck with modified 5e.... are too stupid to manufacture proper weapons for themselves.)

Sception

2020-03-19, 08:48 AM

Instead of getting rid of racial stat bonuses, why not just get rid of/minimize the value of stats in general? Maybe just take the +3 you were going to get by starting out with a race optimized for your class (and thus starting with a 16-17 in the stat) and roll that into the class itself. Leave stats in the game (if at all) only for things like skills. It solves the same issue of not being able to make a Halfling barbarian (they can do fine with a -1 or -2 in Str, relative to humans, so long as it doesn’t influence the d20 roll that a barbarian most often makes, the to-hit and damage rolls), while at the same time meaning that people can actually vary their stats around again a little bit.

This! This is the big thing. Stats are just too important, and that's what, imo, overpunishes unusual racial choices, especially in point buy games where the difference between having and not having a racial bonus to your primary stat means, at the minimum, 12 levels of effectively a -1 penalty to all of your most frequent and important rolls. On any one roll that -1 might not be huge, but over 12 levels having that penalty on every roll stacks up to a painful degree, and that doesn't even include the effective loss of an ASI from your overall progression, something extremely limited and valuable for most classes since they decided to tie feats to asis.

Take stats out of attack, damage, save DCs, saving throws, initiative, & hp. Let those things vary, to the extent they vary at all, on character level and class level alone. Make feats and ability score improvements separate things, since they are no longer equivalent in impact.

Keep stats for ability checks & skill checks, maybe some class, multiclass, or feat requirements. Maybe a set of flat mechanical bonuses for extreme stats, eg str 20 grants a +1 to melee weapon attacks, dex 20 grants a +1 to ranged weapon attacks, con 20 grants a +1 to physical saving throws, int 20 grants a +1 bonus to spell attacks, wis 20 grants a +1 bonus to mental saving throws, and cha 20 grants a +1 bonus to spell DCs. Nice bonuses for eventually maxing out a stat, but not something essential to play a class, and not something even available at first level.

Then you can have racial bonuses and even penalties, and there can still be optimization in builds and racial choices, but stats are no longer such a major defining feature of a character, and thus racial stat mods no longer have such a huge influence on what a character can effectively do.

As for weapon sizes... to me it makes sense that there would be weapons a small character just can't use because they're too big. Can't draw a longbow if its draw distance is longer than your armspan. But there shouldnt be extra bonuses tied to those weapons. There shouldnt be feats or class features that only work for 'heavy' weapons, rewrite all that stuff so it applies to 'weapons wielded in two hands', so at the very least a halfling barbarian wielding a bastard sword in two hands can power attack the same as a half orc wielding a greatsword. Smaller damage die might be too much of a penalty already, more than that seems completely unreasonable to me.

Segev

2020-03-19, 09:03 AM

I think this is a solution in search of a problem. Bounded accuracy already devaules stats to a degree. It's sort-of the wizard/fighter problem with earlier editions (and possibly this one), in that you can argue that the fighter of appropriate level is able to work on any appropriate-CR encounter, but the wizard is doing so with much less challenge. Having a bonus in the +1 or +2 range combined with your proficiency will keep you reasonably successful at things, thanks to bounded accuracy. Having a +4 or +5 means you're succeeding unusually often, thanks to bounded accuracy. So it's NOT punishing you for unusual choices; it's over-rewarding you for making synergistic ones.

Willie the Duck

2020-03-19, 09:11 AM

FWIW I think that Willie the Duck's post #49 was jumping to incorrect conclusions about Dr. Cliche's argument. It wasn't right for him to accuse Dr. Cliche of being flippant. But he's still not the same person as Evaar and I didn't want Dr. Cliche to continue unaware of that relevant fact.
You are correct. I mistook their comment regarding “The base argument” to be in reference to include the arguments people had made subsequent to the OP’s argument. Those arguments included much more than he was describing, and so I saw a sweeping generalization that wiped away the nuance of other arguments, and thus rebuking arguments other than what they made. That was my misinterpretation of what their argument was, and for that I am sorry and apologize.

I addressed the argument being made. The fact that you've done nothing but winge about my succinctly summing up the argument does not speak well for your ability to defend your position.
No, I made an accurate observation and then you started screaming "STRAWMAN!!!", presumable because you heard it once in a debate class and thought it sounded cool.
If you throw around words like 'strawman' willy nilly, with no regard for their actual meaning, then you shouldn't be surprised when people who actually do know what those words mean get snarky with you.
Others have pointed out that I am not Evaar. And Evaar went very quickly to the term strawman, which anyone on the internet will have experienced, gets thrown around too much. You are, at best, giving as good as you got, not rising above. All this will do is devolve into a dueling battle of ‘No, you’re the nerd who never matured past 10th grade!’ This is a race to the bottom that serves no purpose.

But since you asked (albeit in an unnecessarily roundabout manner), my position is that either people want to play races that are distinct in non-cosmetic ways or else they want to play "races" that are little more than humans in different hats (or costumes). To use the example from before, halfling and orcs exhibit substantially different physical characteristics. Put simply, a halfling simply should not be able to even come close to an orc when it comes to physical strength. And this should be represented in some way in game terms. If humans represent the baseline, one would expect halflings to have a strength penalty to represent their small size (and probably for orcs to have a strength bonus to represent their greater size/muscle mass). Hell, I'm actually inclined to agree with a couple of posters above when they said that size penalties have, if anything, been relatively minor (compared to what you'd realistically expect for child-sized races).
My point was that when you start removing all ability penalties, regardless of the physical characteristics of the different races, then you might as well just be playing humans in different costumes. Because you want to play races that are supposed to be drastically different from humans, yet you don't want those differences to actually be represented in any meaningful way.
I’m not in particular disagreement with the thrust of this. Regarding the “either people want to play races that are distinct in non-cosmetic ways or else they want to play "races" that are little more than humans in different hats (or costumes)” part, though, I think people can very much want non-cosmetic distinctions, while at the same time be dissatisfied with the choice in non-cosmetic distinction which the game has set up (or their mechanical consequences).

but that goes to it, why de-emphasize the nimbler stat? isn't nimble as much halfling as lucky is?
isn't strong orc as key to orc identity is being hard to take down?
Nimble is as much an iconic Halfling trait as luck is. However, in the game as written, nimbleness has a much more sweeping effect, by nature of the game mechanics --luck an occasional chance for a re-roll; nimbleness, as a combat stat which informs to-hit and damage, can influence maybe 2/3-3/4 of the rolls a combat class makes. I am suggesting de-emphasizinging nimbleness such that it comes in line with luck in terms of game impact.
All of this is with the clause, ”if something ought to be done at all,” which I’m not truly sold on 100%. This would be if one wants to set up the situation where halflings get the Strength penalty many think they should get (to satisfy verisimilitude), while at the same time making a Halfling barbarian or non-rapier/ranged fighter a not-too-dissuaded option.
I think in this one place, B/X or BECMI (or 1E AD&D, under the likelihood that no one was getting the 18/%% str without magical advancement) did it well – Strength provides a small boost to basic hit and damage, but mostly contributes to maximum encumbrance and feats of strength rolls (bend bars/lift gates), and the far-and-away dominant measure of how good you are at fighting is your level in fighter.

Sception

2020-03-19, 09:27 AM

I think this is a solution in search of a problem. Bounded accuracy already devaules stats to a degree.

Quite the opposite, actually. In 3e a 20th level fighter with a +5 sword got 20 points of attack bonus from their level and 5 points from their weapon, and the difference between a 10 strength and a 20 strength was then at most 20% of their overall attack bonus.

In 5e a 20th level fighter with a +3 sword gets 6 points of attack bonus from their level and 3 points from their sword, and now the difference between a 10 strength and a 20 strength is 35% of their overall attack bonus.

By flattening or outright removing other sources of attack bonuses, damage bonuses, save bonuses, AC bonuses, & other bonuses to critical combat mechanics while leaving the bonuses from stat modifiers unchanged, 5e's version of bounded accuracy makes stat modifiers comparatively much *more* important, not less.

Combined with a point buy system where even a +3 bonus is only accesdible via a racial stat bonus and the decision to tie feats to ability score improvements that means making up the difference in a lower starting primary stat not only takes at least 12 levels but also leaves you permanently down an entire feat even after that, and you have a situation where merely lacking a +1 bonus to your primary stat is a harsher punishment in 5e than a -2 penalty to your primary stat was in 3e.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 09:32 AM

Others have pointed out that I am not Evaar. ... You are, at best, giving as good as you got, not rising above. All this will do is devolve into a dueling battle of ‘No, you’re the nerd who never matured past 10th grade!’ This is a race to the bottom that serves no purpose.

does it matter that you aren't Evaar? you attacked Cliche's argument as a strawman. you condescend to Cliche now, even as you admit that you went after him incorrectly.

Nimble is as much an iconic Halfling trait as luck is. However, in the game as written, nimbleness has a much more sweeping effect, by nature of the game mechanics --luck an occasional chance for a re-roll; nimbleness, as a combat stat which informs to-hit and damage, can influence maybe 2/3-3/4 of the rolls a combat class makes. I am suggesting de-emphasizinging nimbleness such that it comes in line with luck in terms of game impact.
All of this is with the clause, ”if something ought to be done at all,” which I’m not truly sold on 100%. This would be if one wants to set up the situation where halflings get the Strength penalty many think they should get (to satisfy verisimilitude), while at the same time making a Halfling barbarian or non-rapier/ranged fighter a not-too-dissuaded option.
I think in this one place, B/X or BECMI (or 1E AD&D, under the likelihood that no one was getting the 18/%% str without magical advancement) did it well – Strength provides a small boost to basic hit and damage, but mostly contributes to maximum encumbrance and feats of strength rolls (bend bars/lift gates), and the far-and-away dominant measure of how good you are at fighting is your level in fighter.

okay, you aren't defending this as strongly as i though you were...
that said, easier than removing attributes and such, is:

reduce lifting capacity of small creatures by 1/2.
they can still be just as good a swordsman as the orc (attack bonus and damage).
it was a year before i realized that the 1/2 factor didn't apply to small races. my gnome paladin didn't feel inferior cuz he never lifted a horse off the ground (which apparently he could have)

Combined with a point buy system where even a +3 bonus is only accesdible via a racial stat bonus and the decision to tie feats to ability score improvements that means making up the difference in a lower starting primary stat not only takes at least 12 levels but also leaves you permanently down an entire feat even after that, and you have a situation where merely lacking a +1 bonus to your primary stat is a harsher punishment in 5e than a -2 penalty to your primary stat was in 3e.

if the halfling were the only strength based character in the party, would she feel penalized that she still had the highest strength and melee damage? (see above gnome)
or is it because the halfling is comparing herself to the orc barbarian in the party?

is a plus +1 THAT big a difference? advantage is typically +3 to +5.

Guy Lombard-O

2020-03-19, 09:33 AM

All this will do is devolve into a dueling battle of ‘No, you’re the nerd who never matured past 10th grade!’ This is a race to the bottom that serves no purpose.

I've noticed that this applies to almost every non-guide thread that goes into more than 2 pages.

Segev

2020-03-19, 09:41 AM

Quite the opposite, actually. In 3e a 20th level fighter with a +5 sword got 20 points of attack bonus from their level and 5 points from their weapon, and the difference between a 10 strength and a 20 strength was then at most 20% of their overall attack bonus.

In 5e a 20th level fighter with a +3 sword gets 6 points of attack bonus from their level and 3 points from their sword, and now the difference between a 10 strength and a 20 strength is 35% of their overall attack bonus.

By flattening or outright removing other sources of attack bonuses, damage bonuses, save bonuses, AC bonuses, & other bonuses to critical combat mechanics while leaving the bonuses from stat modifiers unchanged, 5e's version of bounded accuracy makes stat modifiers comparatively much *more* important, not less.

Combined with a point buy system where even a +3 bonus is only accesdible via a racial stat bonus and the decision to tie feats to ability score improvements that means making up the difference in a lower starting primary stat not only takes at least 12 levels but also leaves you permanently down an entire feat even after that, and you have a situation where merely lacking a +1 bonus to your primary stat is a harsher punishment in 5e than a -2 penalty to your primary stat was in 3e.

You're making a classic mistake in statistical analysis. Yes, the stat bonus is a larger fraction of the to-hit bonus (and save, and AC, etc.), but no, that doesn't make the problem worse. Because the overall range is smaller.

The mage with a quarterstaff is going to hit far more often in 5e than he did in 3.5, precisely because he has the same proficiency bonus as the fighter, even though the fighter has +5 from strength while the mage has +0. The fighter is going to hit 25% more often than the mage (barring ACs exceeding what the mage can hit on a nat 19...which should be rare, again, because of bounded accuracy), which is good for the fighter, but it's not going to be as crippling as the difference was for mages in 3.5 and PF. If the mage is, for wahtever reason, reduced to melee clubbing with his walking stick, he is still doing something, rather than flailing hillariously and practically auto-missing.

By this same token, a halfling barbarian with a "mere" 18 strength, compared to the half-orc barbarian who made the same base stat distribution who has 20 strength, is only a +1 behind the half-orc barbarian.

The half-orc wizard with "only" 18 intelligence is barely behind the gnome wizard with 20.

Yes, the +1 is a bigger FRACTION of the to-hit or save DC calculation, but in terms of actual impact, it's lessened. Bounded accuracy makes the d20 significantly more important, making the bonuses nice, but not defining.

Boci

2020-03-19, 09:44 AM

Joe the Rat

2020-03-19, 09:47 AM

I'm quite happy with Halflings not being lousy swimmers or incapable of climbing (though they are slower climbers thanks to the minor move penalty).

The entirety of my complaints and observations: Size Edition

Heavy is a size descriptor, not a mass descriptor. It's the whole leverage, two-body center of gravity lending to awkward (and hilarious) Halfling Maul-er episodes, not having the reach to control the polearm effectively, or to pull the bowstring back all the way without Wile E. Coyote antics. Heavy Crossbow is actually a counterpoint - I do not think it is bulky enough nor long enough to justify Heavy categorization, though I might argue that everyone give up moving while reloading.

They could have called it Large. It's not like we aren't already confusing things with duplicate terms.

I think it was a mistake to cut the Small-Medium weight and encumbrance details - reducing carry capacity and worn gear weight is a fiddly detail (arguably a wash, but realistically you square-cube the hell out of it), but it would reduce the 30lb of gnome with 90 lb of gear situation. Scaling weapons is unneccesary. An undersized greatsword is a longsword. Done. GWM should predicate on being two-handed rather than heavy. Greatclub now has a function.

To inject more realism (and less heroics), Size differences in grappling / shoving should impose (Dis)Advantage for the acting character. The grappler feat has teeth again. I wouldn't worry about fixing trip/grab/push/pull/swallow DCs for beasties and battlemasters, just the direct application of opposed Athletics checks.

Willie the Duck

2020-03-19, 09:57 AM

does it matter that you aren't Evaar? you attacked Cliche's argument as a strawman. you condescend to Cliche now, even as you admit (to someone else) that you attacked him incorrectly.

I (erroneously) said that Evaar was right. Max pointed out that I had read Cliche's statement wrong*. I re-read what was said, agreed with Max, and apologized. I was wrong, and acknowledged it, and apologized. I'm not sure how that translates to you into it not mattering that I'm not Evaar.
*I think it entire plausible (although they will have to confirm) that Evaar read Dr. Cliches comments the same way that I initially did, called out the flaw (that exists in the misread of the statement) in a mildly inflammatory way, got a frankly more inflammatory response in return, and now we're stuck in a cycle of hostility does nothing to explore the actual topic of discussion.

I am not condescending to Cliché, I am pointing out that he is responding to Evaar's critique by calling him immature, and doing so in a way that is of the same exact nature. I stand by that. Jumping to calling things 'strawmen' and comments like 'because you heard it once in a debate class and thought it sounded cool' are equally consistent with internet pissing matches.

okay, you aren't defending this as strongly as i though you were...
that said, easier than removing attributes and such, is:

reduce lifting capacity of small creatures by 1/2.
they can still be just as good a swordsman as the orc (attack bonus and damage).
it was a year before i realized that the 1/2 factor didn't apply to small races. my gnome paladin didn't feel inferior cuz he never lifted a horse off the ground (which apparently he could have)

That is certainly another way of accomplishing the same goal, at least for the strength-based portion of the issue. Reducing attribute contribution is certainly bigger systematic change, but would also potentially help the half-orc wizard or the like (for wizards in my model-of-change, perhaps remove Int from save DCs and spell attacks, but keep it for spell memorization limits, although then what to do with bard, sorcerers, etc.? hm...).

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 10:06 AM

You're making a classic mistake in statistical analysis. Yes, the stat bonus is a larger fraction of the to-hit bonus (and save, and AC, etc.), but no, that doesn't make the problem worse. Because the overall range is smaller.

The mage with a quarterstaff is going to hit far more often in 5e than he did in 3.5, precisely because he has the same proficiency bonus as the fighter, even though the fighter has +5 from strength while the mage has +0. The fighter is going to hit 25% more often than the mage (barring ACs exceeding what the mage can hit on a nat 19...which should be rare, again, because of bounded accuracy), which is good for the fighter, but it's not going to be as crippling as the difference was for mages in 3.5 and PF. If the mage is, for wahtever reason, reduced to melee clubbing with his walking stick, he is still doing something, rather than flailing hillariously and practically auto-missing.

By this same token, a halfling barbarian with a "mere" 18 strength, compared to the half-orc barbarian who made the same base stat distribution who has 20 strength, is only a +1 behind the half-orc barbarian.

The half-orc wizard with "only" 18 intelligence is barely behind the gnome wizard with 20.

Yes, the +1 is a bigger FRACTION of the to-hit or save DC calculation, but in terms of actual impact, it's lessened. Bounded accuracy makes the d20 significantly more important, making the bonuses nice, but not defining.

You are correct to an extent, having a lower stat probably isn't penalizing you as much as previous editions since you will still succeed a decent amount of the time however I disagree that the bonuses aren't defining. The fact that you are making those rolls so often, usually multiple times every round means that even a small difference will overall have a big impact on the game.

Also from a narrative POV it's weak. If I want to make say a weapon master who his supposed to be super skillful with a battleaxe, he basically has to be super strong because strength is basically as important as proficiency. For fighters this isn't quite so bad since yeah there's a level of strength you need to be able to become that skillful. But for casters especially Wisdom and Charisma based ones, I basically can't play the absent-minded, naive and super friendly Priest who has strong magical powers. If I want strong magic I have to pump wis, which means even if I don't take Perception or Insight as a skill, I'm going to be spot things all the time, I'll quite often detect when someone is lying to me just based off of passive values.

Boci

2020-03-19, 10:14 AM

Also from a narrative POV it's weak. If I want to make say a weapon master who his supposed to be super skillful with a battleaxe, he basically has to be super strong because strength is basically as important as proficiency. For fighters this isn't quite so bad since yeah there's a level of strength you need to be able to become that skillful. But for casters especially Wisdom and Charisma based ones, I basically can't play the absent-minded, naive and super friendly Priest who has strong magical powers. If I want strong magic I have to pump wis, which means even if I don't take Perception or Insight as a skill, I'm going to be spot things all the time, I'll quite often detect when someone is lying to me just based off of passive values.

Yeah, about the closest you could do is play a divine sorceror and pick mostly cleric spells. In broad strokes 5th edition covers most things between classes and archetypes, but it could do with an actual divine caster who uses charisma. Maybe a new base class, or a cleric domain that switches the stat.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 10:16 AM

I am not condescending to Cliché, I am pointing out that he is responding to Evaar's critique by calling him immature, and doing so in a way that is of the same exact nature. I stand by that. Jumping to calling things 'strawmen' and comments like 'because you heard it once in a debate class and thought it sounded cool' are equally consistent with internet pissing matches.

Respectfully, I disagree.
You apologize for misreading his argument and unfairly attacking him, but then chide him for comments that he made while he was still unfairly attacked.
I would agree with you if you went with "We are, at best, giving as good as we got, not rising above...., but you are still calling him out for behavior that you exhibited too.
That fact that I won't let this go either is a sign of my weakness. (The fact that I am aware of this and still typing it means I am a jerk)

That is certainly another way of accomplishing the same goal, at least for the strength-based portion of the issue. Reducing attribute contribution is certainly bigger systematic change, but would also potentially help the half-orc wizard or the like (for wizards in my model-of-change, perhaps remove Int from save DCs and spell attacks, but keep it for spell memorization limits, although then what to do with bard, sorcerers, etc.? hm...).

Is the half-orc wizard suffering though? is a +4 so much worse than a +5?
i think have 1 less spell in my arsenal is way worse than a 5% lower chance to succeed.
by level 12, half-orc and high elf are both 20 Int... they are equally adept at wizarding. except they aren't. the elf can get elven accuracy feat and hit more often.

If I want strong magic I have to pump wis, which means even if I don't take Perception or Insight as a skill, I'm going to be spot things all the time, I'll quite often detect when someone is lying to me just based off of passive values.

are you suggesting a new attribute "Combat-ness" that you can improve independently from wisdom?

cuz if you just remove the attribute effects from combat, then you CAN focus on improving your skills, but only XP makes you a stronger magic-er.
conversely, if you want play a wise, but magically inept priest, and become a better truth teller you can pump your wisdom, but you automatically become a better cleric.
alternatively, you could roleplay your ineptness in one aspect.

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 10:23 AM

Amechra

2020-03-19, 10:24 AM

My thinking is thus: +2s and -1s aren’t interesting, but they are increasingly important, and as they have become more important, they have started to vary less and less. Instead of getting rid of racial stat bonuses, why not just get rid of/minimize the value of stats in general? Maybe just take the +3 you were going to get by starting out with a race optimized for your class (and thus starting with a 16-17 in the stat) and roll that into the class itself. Leave stats in the game (if at all) only for things like skills. It solves the same issue of not being able to make a Halfling barbarian (they can do fine with a -1 or -2 in Str, relative to humans, so long as it doesn’t influence the d20 roll that a barbarian most often makes, the to-hit and damage rolls), while at the same time meaning that people can actually vary their stats around again a little bit.

I actually looked into doing this a while back - the issue is that there are a lot of corner cases. If I'm a Warlock and I multiclass into Wizard, should I effectively have a Int 16 and Cha 16? If I'm a Bard, do I default to having 3 uses of Bardic Inspiration? If I'm an unarmored Monk, do I have AC 13+Dex, AC 13+Wis, or AC 16? If I'm an Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster, do I get the full "fake" +3 Int for the purposes of spellcasting?

Should we have classes that have a lower effective attack stat, just so that features like Shillelagh and Hex Warrior still do something?

---

One possibility is to cap ability scores at 14 + 2x[Tier]. That's 16 from 1-4, 18 from 5-10, 20 from 11-16, and 22 at 17+. Then you get less of a rush towards getting that sweet 18/20, and people have an incentive to spread out their starting ability scores.

Sception

2020-03-19, 10:25 AM

A 20th level fighter on 3e would have closer to 30 strength, possibly higher depending on optimizations.

That only exacerbates the point that racial modifiers matter *more* in 5e than they did in 3e. Flattening some modifiers means the modifiers you don't flatten matter more. Erasing the difference between a fighter's proficiency bonus and a wizards proficiency bonus means the fighter stat bonuses matter more, not less. Removing the save DC modifiers for spell levels means the dc modifiers for casting stat matter more, not less.

I wouldn't want to play a barbarian at all in 3.5 because of how badly martials acale in that edition, but if I was committed to playing a halfling barbarian for role playing reasons, then that barbarian /being/ a halfling is more of a downgrade compared to other racial options in 5e than it was in 3.5.

The difference in ability between a halfling and a half orc barbarian in 3.5 was less noticeable than that difference is in 5e, even though the difference in their strength score was greater. Partially because strength didn't account for as much of their total fighting ability, partially because there were more ways to raise strength, lessening the relative impact of the racial modifiers, partially because a 3.5 halfling could power attack with a halfling-sized great axe just fine where as a 5e halfling can't wield a heavy weapon for great weapon master at all.

I'm not saying 3.5 halfling barbarians were better than 5e halfling barbarians are. They weren't, but that's because barbarians in general, along with all martials, were worse in 3.5. But the mechanical difference between an optimal and suboptimal race is significantly more noticeable now, largely because of the outsized value of racial stat modifiers in a bounded accuracy world.

So yeah, the difference between a 15 starting stat and a 16 starting stat is a bigger deal now than the difference between a 14 and and an 18 was in 3.5, and because feats are linked to ASIs it stays a big deal throught your entire career where as in 3.5 the difference between a starting 14 and 18, at least on weapon using characters, would fade into meaninglessness by mid levels, even if it never completely went away.

47Ace

2020-03-19, 10:25 AM

I do agree that how races are defined with stat bonuses is frustrating. I don't have a problem with races handing out one flat +2 to a stat it could mean that even the Dwarf is as durable as the average human due to a +2 con or even the most clumsy elf is as agile as the average human. But it would be much better if they also all had a floating +1 so you could have a non-melee or cleric dwarf without having to deal with the fact that you are fundamentally less effective at the rolls you make the most often. If you want to encourage certain races to play certain classes you could let them turn that +1 into a +2 for certain stats. I think the best example of how annoying and silly the current method of creating races is the Assimar. There are three version they all gain +2 to charisma and then there is the protector one which fluff wise would make a great Paladin but it gets a +1 wis so it can work as a Cleric so it makes a poor Paladin. If you want a +1 str for a decent Paladin you have to play the Scourge which is the edgy evil one that doesn't fit the classic Paladin. They could have just given the base class a +2 to charisma and a +1 to dex, str, or wis (or just a +1 to any non Cha) and the sub-classes would have just been interesting flavour but they didn't.

With regards to the stats in general they are not just flavour of how strong of smart you are that ship sailed with the release of 3.0e. Stats are a fundamental part of your ability to contribute to the game strength in not really strength its the hitting things with a sword stat, int is the casting wizard spells stat. In the AD&D era stats where mostly just fluff and they didn't effect you ability to hit things unless you had a very large stat and then you got a +1. With regards to people wanting small creatures to be able to use heavy weapons its just because they want to be able to play things like halfling barbarians (like in Eberror) without giving up GWM which is huge for effectiveness of that sort of build. If GWM could be used with long swords the complains would probably go away.

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 10:26 AM

are you suggesting a new attribute "Combat-ness" that you can improve independently from wisdom?

cuz if you just remove the attribute effects from combat, then you CAN focus on improving your skills, but only XP makes you a stronger magic-er.

See my post just below yours as one way to do it. But overall yeah I don't think attributes should have as much of an impact as they do relative to skill/proficiency there are likely many ways to accomplish that.

Boci

2020-03-19, 10:27 AM

Out of curiosity what would people think of dropping the stat based bonus to the attack roll and for spell DCs and instead you just double your proficiency bonus for those things? Leave the bonuses for damage as is.

So do sorcerors and clerics even need their casting stat then? What happens if I run a sorceror with 8/10 charisma under those rules? Ditto with cleric with a degree, though tanking wisdom is worse since its a more common save.

Amechra

2020-03-19, 10:30 AM

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 10:31 AM

So yeah, the difference between a 15 starting stat and a 16 starting stat is a bigger deal now than the difference between a 14 and and an 18 was in 3.5, and because feats are linked to ASIs it stays a big deal throught your entire career where as in 3.5 the difference between a starting 14 and 18, at least on weapon using characters, would fade into meaninglessness by mid levels, even if it never completely went away.

in 5e, the strength disparity between a gnome and a goliath is gone by level 12. at mid-level (7ish) it is a static 5% difference, imo, is a meaningless difference.

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 10:31 AM

Boci

2020-03-19, 10:34 AM

Sorcerers would still want Charisma for subclass features and Empowered Spell.

Empower spell is just one of, what eight+ metamagics, and how many subclass features use charisma?

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 10:35 AM

So do sorcerors and clerics even need their casting stat then? What happens if I run a sorceror with 8/10 charisma under those rules? Ditto with cleric with a degree, though tanking wisdom is worse since its a more common save.

For the most part no they don't need/have a casting stat. So if you want to play that Warlock who spends his time studying dusty tomes you can give him a high intelligence and low charisma. You can play the naive/trusting Cleric/Druid with a low wis, etc...

Certain classes/features are still based off of the primary stat such as the number of uses a Bard has for Inspiration or the number of spells a Wizard can prepare. Some would maybe need to be reworked but maybe not.

47Ace

2020-03-19, 10:36 AM

The ironic part about the stat bonuses is that that's what a typical person of that race would have as bonuses. However as mentioned everywhere, PCs aren't typical for their race, they are supposed to be exceptions for their race so yeah most Half-Orcs are strong but not super intelligent, but the PC Half-Orc wizard, he's the exception to that rule. So it would actually make a lot of sense to have the stat bonuses be floating.

Exactly. It may make sense to have NPC versions of races with fixed stat bonuses but let the PC be special, that what PC are supposed to be.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 10:38 AM

See my post just below yours as one way to do it. But overall yeah I don't think attributes should have as much of an impact as they do relative to skill/proficiency there are likely many ways to accomplish that.

so your level-6 cleric could be "good at casting (+6) but bad at insight (+0) cuz you didn't take the skill."
but your level-6 cleric could not be "bad at casting (cuz you automatically have a +6) but good at insight (+6) cuz you DID take the skill"

again, rather than change the system for everyone, apply restrictions on your toon. I openly declared that my cleric was asleep; ergo, auto fail perception despite a passive of 18.

Boci

2020-03-19, 10:41 AM

Exactly. It may make sense to have NPC versions of races with fixed stat bonuses but let the PC be special, that what PC are supposed to be.

Yeah, but PCs are already special, they have class features and inspiration, the story focuses on them, ect. So it comes down to how special you want to make the PCs. I don't mind fixed stat bonuses, because yes whilst PCs are exceptional/special elves, humand or orcs, they are still elves, humans and orcs.

so your level-6 cleric could be "good at casting (+6) but bad at insight (+0) cuz you didn't take the skill."
but your level-6 cleric could not be "bad at casting (cuz you automatically have a +6) but good at insight (+6) cuz you DID take the skill"

again, rather than change the system for everyone, apply restrictions on your toon. I openly declared that my cleric was asleep; ergo, auto fail perception despite a passive of 18.

The inability to make a caster be bad at castings seems like a smaller problem then requiring nearly all casters to be at least decent at a group of skills based on their casting stat.

Your solution is also rather situational. You're quickly going to run out of excuses for why your 20 wisdom cleric is always distracte/not focused and doesn't make the check.

Sception

2020-03-19, 10:47 AM

Boci

2020-03-19, 10:50 AM

A high level caster shouldn't be able to be bad at castering. A high level fighter shouldn't be able to be bad at fightering. To the extent that the system might allow for this, that is a problem with the system.

That's going too far. Eragorn has an old elf character who mentored the titular young man. He was once a very powerful wizard, but now struggled with magic, because, he had a brain tumour or something. It was vague and undefined, but he was past his prime and not as powerful as he once had been.

Is it vital that such a character be represented in a system? Obviously not, its a fairly niche case, but I feels its wrong to say its a problem if the system allows it.

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 10:50 AM

so your level-6 cleric could be "good at casting (+6) but bad at insight (+0) cuz you didn't take the skill."
but your level-6 cleric could not be "bad at casting (cuz you automatically have a +6) but good at insight (+6) cuz you DID take the skill"

again, rather than change the system for everyone, apply restrictions on your toon. I openly declared that my cleric was asleep; ergo, auto fail perception despite a passive of 18.

I'm not sure your example is particularly good. First off I doubt anyone ever wants to play a caster whose bad at casting. Second the argument is that by gaining experience to get up to level 6 you have actually become good at casting. What's the argument for gaining new/more powerful spells that are easily resisted because you somehow are still bad at casting?

The same shouldn't necessarily hold true for things that are more personality based, sure a naive character might wise as they go out into the world, but it's perfectly reasonable that they don't. Also I didn't specifically mention skills as getting the "expertise", I have less issue with skills being left as is and being a combination of stats and proficiency. Even though they are probably weighted too much towards stats it would take a lot of changes to "fix" that.

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 10:56 AM

That's going too far. Eragorn has an old elf character who mentored the titular young man. He was once a very powerful wizard, but now struggled with magic, because, he had a brain tumour or something. It was vague and undefined, but he was past his prime and not as powerful as he once had been.

Is it vital that such a character be represented in a system? Obviously not, its a fairly niche case, but I feels its wrong to say its a problem if the system allows it.

Well that character is easily created by having the brain tumour cause a permanent loss of levels. Possibly even restricting further XP gains unless some way of fighting the tumour is found.

Which for the record could be a cool character.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 10:58 AM

The inability to make a caster be bad at castings seems like a smaller problem then requiring nearly all casters to be at least decent at a group of skills based on their casting stat.

Your solution is also rather situational. You're quickly going to run out of excuses for why your 20 wisdom cleric is always distracte/not focused and doesn't make the check.

It sounds like you are saying:

That I can't roleplay a weakness
That the player can't intentionally make the toon make bad decisions
That I must roll play.
That my stat MUST define all of my strengths
That it is better to revamp an entire system to impose a limitation on my own character

A 20 in charisma doesn't require a sorc to be decent at intimidation or persuasion. It allows a player to be decent at intimidation or persuasion if he chooses to.
Player agency.

Boci

2020-03-19, 11:02 AM

Well that character is easily created by having the brain tumour cause a permanent loss of levels. Possibly even restricting further XP gains unless some way of fighting the tumour is found.

Which for the record could be a cool character.

That is one way to do it, but likely the least interesting. A higher level wizard with 8 intelligence is more exciting, because it makes them different to a low wizard. Lets compare 10 and sickly to 5 and healthy. The 10th level wizard knows higher level spells, but even with his proficiency being a little higher, 8 intelligence vs. 16 or 18 means his offensive spells are weaker. Its a more interesting way of representing it than just making the formerly 10th level wizard suddenly 5.

Its a small issue as mentioned, not many people will want to play such a character, but I wouldn't say its a problem if the system offers multiple ways to represent that.

It sounds like you are saying:

That I can't roleplay a weakness
That the player can't intentionally make the toon make bad decisions
That I must roll play.
That my stat MUST define all of my strengths
That it is better to revamp an entire system to impose a limitation on my own character

I'm not.

A 20 in charisma doesn't require a sorc to be decent at intimidation or persuasion. It allows a player to be decent at intimidation or persuasion if he chooses to. Player agency.

So my young, mousy sorceror with 20 charisma tries to make a persuasion check. They'd rather someone else in the party did, but the face is unavailable. I roll 1d20. What do I add?

47Ace

2020-03-19, 11:04 AM

Yeah, but PCs are already special, they have class features and inspiration, the story focuses on them, ect. So it comes down to how special you want to make the PCs. I don't mind fixed stat bonuses, because yes whilst PCs are exceptional/special elves, humand or orcs, they are still elves, humans and orcs.

OK but the situation is all dwarfs are bad at being wizards, all hobgoblins are bad at being soldiers, and all elves are bad at using longswords (despite getting proficiency as a racial bonus) until at least level 12 and someone with the appropriate stat boost could have a relevant feat on top of the maxed stat.

Boci

2020-03-19, 11:08 AM

OK but the situation is all dwarfs are bad at being wizards, all hobgoblins are bad at being soldiers, and all elves are bad at using longswords (despite getting proficiency as a racial bonus) until at least level 12 and someone with the appropriate stat boost could have a relevant feat on top of the maxed stat.

Well no. As you mentioned PCs are special/exceptional. A first level elf fighter with a longsword will be better than the MM guard or bandit. They will be worse than a 1st level dwarf or half-orc fighter, but not bad, because they're PCs and PCs are special/exceptional.

Segev

2020-03-19, 11:09 AM

You are correct to an extent, having a lower stat probably isn't penalizing you as much as previous editions since you will still succeed a decent amount of the time however I disagree that the bonuses aren't defining. The fact that you are making those rolls so often, usually multiple times every round means that even a small difference will overall have a big impact on the game.

Also from a narrative POV it's weak. If I want to make say a weapon master who his supposed to be super skillful with a battleaxe, he basically has to be super strong because strength is basically as important as proficiency. For fighters this isn't quite so bad since yeah there's a level of strength you need to be able to become that skillful. But for casters especially Wisdom and Charisma based ones, I basically can't play the absent-minded, naive and super friendly Priest who has strong magical powers. If I want strong magic I have to pump wis, which means even if I don't take Perception or Insight as a skill, I'm going to be spot things all the time, I'll quite often detect when someone is lying to me just based off of passive values.

Now you’re not arguing anything unique to 5e. Casters have always had stats that are important.

You want to play him absent-minded? Go ahead! There’s nothing stopping you. Higher wisdom doesn’t mean you have to be firmly grounded. That’s just one way to represent it. Mad insight is another. Absent minded distraction that nevertheless has insightful comments and notices things almost be accident is yet another.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 11:18 AM

So my young, mousy sorceror with 20 charisma tries to make a persuasion check. They'd rather someone else in the party did, but the face is unavailable. I roll 1d20. What do I add?

How good do you FEEL your PC should be at this?

if you FEEL that he sux, then you can add prof + 0.
if you FEEL that he is okay, then you can add prof + 2.
if you FEEL that he is mousy, but surprisingly charismatic you can add prof + 5.
maybe you FEEL he doesn't know how good he is and undercuts himself, so roll disadvantage and add prof + 5.

Boci

2020-03-19, 11:19 AM

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 11:24 AM

That's a decent way of handling, but that is not how all groups will and nor will every DM be happy giving a player that much freedom to tweak the rules.
you and sorinth have made several posts recommending massive overhauls to the system and haven't asked yourselves if a DM or group would be willing to tweak the rules that way.

consult your DM is the standard for weird requests.
I have not ever met a DM that will stop a player from nerfing their own character; so that is "situational"

Damon_Tor

2020-03-19, 11:29 AM

(kobolds have -2 str)

What I hate is what they did to the small races.
You may be the strongest halfling (24 str as a barbarian level 20) but you will never be able to use a heavy weapons as no one is building weapons for smaller races and even it was to build one it will still be considered heavy and you will be stuck with disadvantage.

"Stuck with disadvantage" is not the same as "never able to use".

It's not a lack of strength that gives small races their penalty with heavy weapons, the problem is they don't weigh enough: it's physics. Whenever you push something, two objects are being acted upon by that force, the object you're pushing and you yourself. The degree to which those objects are moved is based on their relative masses. So if a 200 pound human swings a 10 pound maul toward something in front of him, the human is thrust backward with about 5% of that force, leaving 95% of it to move the weapon. But when a 50 pound halfling performs the exact same maneuver with the exact same weapon using the exact same amount of force, the halfling is shoved backward with about 20% of the force of the strike, striking with only 80% of the available force.

This has nothing to do with strength (again, both persons were exerting the exact same amount of force) this is just a matter of weight, ie, mass.

"But Damon," you might object "While that may be true for persons fighting while hovering under the effects of a levitation spell or something, under normal circumstances these fighters are going to be on the ground, and they will use their legs to brace against the ground to mitigate the forces." And that's true, but the degree to which bracing against the ground is effective is a product of friction between ground and that person's feet. And friction is a product of the force pressing those surfaces together (gravity, ie weight, again advantaging the larger creature) and surface area (and medium creatures will tend to have larger feet). None of this gives any advantage to the smaller creature.

So we're left with a 15% difference in capability, which for similarly proficient individuals, is fairly well represented by disadvantage.

"So why stop there?" You could say, reducing my argument to absurdity "After all, the same is true for all weapons, not just heavy ones. Maybe a halfling should have disadvantage with all weapons." A 200 pound human swings a 2 pound club with 99% efficiency while the 50 pound halfling swings it with 96% efficiency. But here the difference between is only 3%, not the 15% we saw with the maul, and modeling a variation that small doesn't seem like it's worth the trouble.

"Aha, but none of this makes any sense for bows and crossbows! You don't swing a crossbow around, and the bolts, the objects which actually need to have the force acting on them, have negligible weight." Again, this is a good point, but while the degree to which you move a heavy crossbow is very small compared to a maul, you must still move it quickly and with precision in order to hit a moving target, and just like the maul, the halfling's low mass makes him less effective at doing this, no matter the strength involved. So when he's aiming at a goblin running toward him, and the goblin lurches to the right as he's getting ready to fire, he has to compensate by moving the weapon to the left by a few degrees, and that force is acting on his own body, moving him to the right and eating up something like 40% of the force required. Then when the weapon is lined up again he has to stop the weapon from turning, and again his own body eats up something like 40% of the force. Imagine going skeet shooting with a 72 pound shotgun: as you move the weapon to aim at a target your body will wobble around as this gigantic object changes your whole center of gravity, no matter how much strength you've got. Arnold Schwarzenegger would have a hard time with that.

"That may be true for the heavy crossbow, which weighs 18 pounds. But a longbow only weighs 2 pounds, the same as that club you mentioned earlier, so all of this is moot in regard to the longbow." And that's very true, none of these arguments apply to the reason the longbow has the heavy property. Yet a small creature is even less likely to use a longbow properly: a halfling doesn't have long enough arms to draw a longbow. A halfling, even a halfling with infinite strength, could only draw a bow as far as the length his arms will allow him to, which is about half as far as a human could. A half-drawn bow is not half as effective as a fully drawn bow: in fact it is virtually useless because (a) the force of a bow being pulled increases exponentially not linearly the further it's pulled back and (b) the arrow's center of gravity remains in front of the bow, sending it end-over-end instead of straight forward when released. So if anything, the heavy property is too forgiving for a halfling attempting to use a longbow, they frankly shouldn't be allowed to at all from a purely simulationist standpoint.

Boci

2020-03-19, 11:33 AM

I have not ever met a DM that will stop a player from nerfing their own character; so that is "situational"

I have. I can't imagine a DM who won't let you give yourself disadvante on a skill check, because you can solve that if you try, but I know at leastr one DM who does not let players reduce a modifer of +5, because 5th ed largely doesn't change actual modifiers.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 11:37 AM

I have. I can't imagine a DM who won't let you give yourself disadvante on a skill check, because you can solve that if you try, but I know at leastr one DM who does not let players reduce a modifer of +5, because 5th ed largely doesn't change actual modifiers.

okay... would that DM allow you to completely swap out attributes modifiers for a new system? no, prolly not.

Boci

2020-03-19, 11:38 AM

okay... would that DM allow you to completely swap out attributes modifiers for a new system? no, prolly not.

Quite possible. You seem to see an overlap that others won't neccissarily. But I don't know for sure, I'd have to ask them.

you and sorinth have made several posts recommending massive overhauls to the system and haven't asked yourselves if a DM or group would be willing to tweak the rules that way.

No I didn't. I just commented on an idea for a system rehaul, which I always feel is worthwhile, since more options and good.

Morty

2020-03-19, 12:10 PM

The discussion about absent-minded clerics and similar highlights the fact that attribute assignment is a formality more than anything else. Of course you'll put your highest attribute in your class' key attribute. Then you need at least 12 constitution, otherwise you're fragile. More than that, if you're going to spend a lot of time in melee. You won't focus on it, though, as it's mostly passive. You don't want to dump dexterity, either, since AC and initiative are important. Wisdom saves are fairly common and harsh, so you probably want a 12 in it too. Your real choices get narrower and narrower. Intelligence, strength and charisma are safe to ignore if you're not actively using skills or abilities relating to them. There's some wriggle room, but by and large your "choices" are set in once you've picked your class and general direction.

47Ace

2020-03-19, 12:31 PM

"Stuck with disadvantage" is not the same as "never able to use".

It's not strength that gives small races their penalty with heavy weapons, the problem is they don't weigh enough: it's physics. Whenever you push something, two objects are being acted upon by that force, the object you're pushing and you yourself. The degree to which those objects are moved is based on their relative masses. So if a 200 pound human swings a 10 pound maul toward something in front of him, the human is thrust backward with about 5% of that force, leaving 95% of it to move the weapon. But when a 50 pound halfling performs the exact same maneuver with the exact same weapon using the exact same amount of force, the halfling is shoved backward with about 20% of the force of the strike, striking with only 80% of the available force.

If you are trying to argue realism a 10 maul should have disadvantage for everyone as that comfortably above reasonable weapon weights. On the other and from a realism point of view elves with long bows (or high poundage recurves) is a bit suspect as broad shouldered and heavily muscled is the ideal for a bowman. i.e. the western English ideal bony shape for a man which descends from the idea body shape for an English peasant. Which is different from the ideal body shape for a noble in armor i.e. tall and slender like and elf for better mobility in armor and with two handed weapons like a sword.

Quick question do you have a problem with halflings using GWM with a longsword? I am not trying to judge with this question I am just curious.

"That may be true for the heavy crossbow, which weighs 18 pounds. But a longbow only weighs 2 pounds, the same as that club you mentioned earlier, so all of this is moot in regard to the longbow." And that's very true, none of these arguments apply to the reason the longbow has the heavy property. Yet a small creature is even less likely to use a longbow properly: a halfling doesn't have long enough arms to draw a longbow. A halfling, even a halfling with infinite strength, could only draw a bow as far as the length his arms will allow him to, which is about half as far as a human could. A half-drawn bow is not half as effective as a fully drawn bow: in fact it is virtually useless because (a) the force of a bow being pulled increases exponentially not linearly the further it's pulled back and (b) the arrow's center of gravity remains in front of the bow, sending it end-over-end instead of straight forward when released. So if anything, the heavy property is too forgiving for a halfling attempting to use a longbow, they frankly shouldn't be allowed to at all from a purely simulationist standpoint.

First of all non-mechanical compound bows are roughly perfect springs with roughly linear force increase, I'm not sure where you got exponential increase from. Second of all, you could just make a bow with a shorter draw length, stiffer and, shorter arrows. It would probably resemble a mongol composite re-curve more then a longbow but there is no reason the draw weights couldn't be the same. Now draw weights are not the be all end end all of bow power and draw length and "draw weight" when not pulled back are also important. Now this in not really a problem because you can still use Sharp Shooter with shortbows and only lose a bit of range and 1 average damage.

On the point about aiming heavy weapons, weight is a bit of an advantage I have heard from pro wildlife photographers that it is easier to get sharp photos with a 13 lb 500mm lens then a 4 lb one because of the weight.

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 12:47 PM

How good do you FEEL your PC should be at this?

if you FEEL that he sux, then you can add prof + 0.
if you FEEL that he is okay, then you can add prof + 2.
if you FEEL that he is mousy, but surprisingly charismatic you can add prof + 5.
maybe you FEEL he doesn't know how good he is and undercuts himself, so roll disadvantage and add prof + 5.

I think it's a slippery slope for the PCs to start deciding to impose disadvantage or static penalties since that's very much the DM's job. It's similar to the DM fudging rolls, some people are fine with it, some aren't.

But sure if you ask the DM to give you disadvantage for RP reasons I doubt they would say no. But I could also see it becoming very tiresome for all the other players at the table. Especially since it can often impact them, if you decide that you didn't actually notice that monsters waiting in ambush and as a result a PC gets killed it could easily cause friction. Or the whole party is searching a room for a secret door and you decide your character won't even roll because he gets distracted, it can become a problem.

One way or the other you are house ruling things, so what's wrong with doing it in a generic way rather then taking a case by case approach?

MaxWilson

2020-03-19, 01:04 PM

consult your DM is the standard for weird requests.
I have not ever met a DM that will stop a player from nerfing their own character; so that is "situational"

I suspect there's probably a lot of DMs who will stop players from nerfing their own character on initiative rolls--I certainly see a lot of DMs insisting that they don't allow "delaying" as an action because it's not RAW.

(Or maybe you'd argue that initiative is a case where a nerf is actually a buff, since it lets you coordinate better with the other PCs, and that you were only only talking about actual nerfs instead of nerf-buffs. Is that what you'd say?)

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 01:42 PM

But sure if you ask the DM to give you disadvantage for RP reasons I doubt they would say no. But I could also see it becoming very tiresome for all the other players at the table. Especially since it can often impact them, if you decide that you didn't actually notice that monsters waiting in ambush and as a result a PC gets killed it could easily cause friction. Or the whole party is searching a room for a secret door and you decide your character won't even roll because he gets distracted, it can become a problem.

my bad, i thought you were trying to intentionally design a character that would be bad at perception/insight but good at combat. i wonder what gave me that idea.

I basically can't play the absent-minded, naive and super friendly Priest who has strong magical powers.

you are correct, intentionally creating a cleric with low perception could easily cause friction in a party.

One way or the other you are house ruling things, so what's wrong with doing it in a generic way rather then taking a case by case approach?

if you want to really hammer out a design change, please layout the complete change in a new thread.
right now, you are trying to replace a core facet of 5e in a few 2 line posts, where you identify edge cases as the reason for the change.
for instance, it appears that you only replace attribute scores for combat with a doubling of proficiency.
then we can discuss the effects of a design as a whole instead of piecemeal based on what you reveal.

(that said, it might get pushed to the homebrew forum)

I suspect there's probably a lot of DMs who will stop players from nerfing their own character on initiative rolls--I certainly see a lot of DMs insisting that they don't allow "delaying" as an action because it's not RAW.

(Or maybe you'd argue that initiative is a case where a nerf is actually a buff, since it lets you coordinate better with the other PCs, and that you were only only talking about actual nerfs instead of nerf-buffs. Is that what you'd say?)

that is a good point. although, i expect that as long as you are consistent (ie, my init modifier is ALWAYS -1) then it is less of a problem.
low init isn't really a buff, but the ability to choose when you go is.

MaxWilson

2020-03-19, 01:58 PM

that is a good point. although, i expect that as long as you are consistent (ie, my init modifier is ALWAYS -1) then it is less of a problem.
low init isn't really a buff, but the ability to choose when you go is.

Sometimes low init is a straight-up buff, or to put it differently, high initiative is a penalty.

If Bob the Open-Hand Monk is good at knocking people prone, and Gronk is a low-Dex GWM PAM Fighter in the same party, then Bob has high initiative (and the DM is using vanilla PHB initiative rules, which I don't use myself) that increases the chances that they'll wind up in the worst-possible configuration:

Bob knocks an enemy prone
Enemy gets back up and attacks
Gronk attacks (without advantage)

If Bob can somehow lower his initiative bonus from +4ish to +1, to be barely faster than Gronk, they will more frequently be able to exploit the better configurations, such as:

Enemy gets attacks
Bob knocks an enemy prone
Gronk attacks with advantage

This is one of the reasons I refuse to use vanilla PHB initiative.

Evaar

2020-03-19, 02:05 PM

Boy oh boy.

Dr. Cliché said:

The base argument seems to be 'every race should be able to excel at everything equally'.

In which case, why even bother with races at all? They clearly aren't representing anything.

Everyone might as well just be playing humans in different hats.

I called that a straw man because the term accurately represents the fallacy in his statement. That's not an insult or an attack; it's pointing out he made an error in his response. No one is arguing that every race should be able to excel at everything equally, they're instead arguing that race options should be designed to expand choice rather than restrict it. He oversimplified the opposing view, which is the definition of a straw man argument.

Saying that someone has made a straw man argument is not the same as saying they did so intentionally and maliciously. Misunderstanding an opponent's point and responding to that misunderstanding is pretty common.

Anyway, I think I've otherwise made my case on the actual topic. We can disagree in good faith.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 02:10 PM

No one is arguing that every race should be able to excel at everything equally,

the OP did: "character ... will never be as good at some things as Human or a race who was supposed to be good at it instead"

even this guy admits the OP did

what's being argued against (although not by the OP, but by subsequent posts) is not racial options

given the Cliche explicitly said he was addressing the OP's argument, it is not a strawman.

if someone made a good faith effort to represent Cliche's argument, then they could disagree in good faith. you did not.

Segev

2020-03-19, 02:46 PM

There's always readying an action, but yeah, that's lame compared to delaying and resetting your init to later if you genuinely want to go later in the round.

That may warrant its own thread to discuss, though.

Daphne

2020-03-19, 03:03 PM

What if instead of attribute bonuses / penalties, races had pre-requisites? Like, elves are nimble so you need 13 DEX to play one.

You could then move the bonuses to the base classes.

MaxWilson

2020-03-19, 03:11 PM

What if instead of attribute bonuses / penalties, races had pre-requisites? Like, elves are nimble so you need 13 DEX to play one.

Welcome to AD&D! Books are readily available and affordable on Amazon starting at about $20 for a PHB (https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0786903295/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=used&qid=&sr=).

Segev

2020-03-19, 03:17 PM

What if instead of attribute bonuses / penalties, races had pre-requisites? Like, elves are nimble so you need 13 DEX to play one.

You could then move the bonuses to the base classes.

It's an interesting idea, but you a) need to make sure you don't lock people out of any possible race with "bad enough" stat lines, and b) would need to make the races interesting enough to force buying in.

That said, this actually would worsen the problem being complained about.

Right now, if you want to play a half-orc wizard, you get a +2 to Strength and a +1 to Constitution from your race, but can still put your highest stat (or max out your point expenditure) in Intelligence. Even if the same stat (rolled or bought) would be 2 higher with a gnome or one higher with a High Elf, it's still not likely to be low. (e.g. in 27 point buy, as suggested in the varient rule in the PHB, you could buy a 15 Int maximum. A gnome could get that to 17, and a high elf to 16, both being a +1 net bonus over the half-orc.)

However, that half-orc with 15 int is still smarter than a large number of humans and even gnomes and high elves.

If it took stat minima to play a race, the half-orc may require a minimum 12 or 13 in Strength and a minimum 11 or 12 in Constitution. These would mean you had to put certain stats there, or invest certain numbers of points, meaning that 15 int is harder to get, and that other stats must be even lower than you might otherwise make them.

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 03:22 PM

my bad, i thought you were trying to intentionally design a character that would be bad at perception/insight but good at combat. i wonder what gave me that idea.

you are correct, intentionally creating a cleric with low perception could easily cause friction in a party.

The friction doesn't come from having a cleric with low perception it comes when you are always providing a RP reason to give yourself disadvantage on a check.

Segev

2020-03-19, 03:24 PM

The friction doesn't come from having a cleric with low perception it comes when you are always providing a RP reason to give yourself disadvantage on a check.

I don't know how to interpret this. Do you mean it causes friction to make up a new reason each time, or that it causes friction because you're RPing in a way that causes you to have Disadvantage?

Frankly, I would say: don't. Don't give yourself Disadvantage. Roll what you have. Then role play out how your character responds to what he noticed. If he's absent-minded, maybe he notices but doesn't say anything because it doesn't seem like something important to mention to him.

47Ace

2020-03-19, 03:37 PM

It's an interesting idea, but you a) need to make sure you don't lock people out of any possible race with "bad enough" stat lines, and b) would need to make the races interesting enough to force buying in.

That said, this actually would worsen the problem being complained about.

Right now, if you want to play a half-orc wizard, you get a +2 to Strength and a +1 to Constitution from your race, but can still put your highest stat (or max out your point expenditure) in Intelligence. Even if the same stat (rolled or bought) would be 2 higher with a gnome or one higher with a High Elf, it's still not likely to be low. (e.g. in 27 point buy, as suggested in the varient rule in the PHB, you could buy a 15 Int maximum. A gnome could get that to 17, and a high elf to 16, both being a +1 net bonus over the half-orc.)

However, that half-orc with 15 int is still smarter than a large number of humans and even gnomes and high elves.

If it took stat minima to play a race, the half-orc may require a minimum 12 or 13 in Strength and a minimum 11 or 12 in Constitution. These would mean you had to put certain stats there, or invest certain numbers of points, meaning that 15 int is harder to get, and that other stats must be even lower than you might otherwise make them.

I wouldn't mind that, sure you overall stats may be worse but, its a good way to show races having a tenancy for certain abilities without making it impossible to start with the same modifier for the most common rolls. A half orc wizard may not have as much wis, dex or chr, as a high elf one (buying a 16 would be expensive) but, they still have half-orc like str and con and their most common roll and their saving throw DC is still the same. The just had to work harder and specialize more then the elf did. Part of the fun of a half-orc wizard is that you are not as good of a fit at being a wizard but reducing their most commonly used stat is a very crude, brute force, and annoying way to do that.

Segev

2020-03-19, 03:46 PM

I wouldn't mind that, sure you overall stats may be worse but, its a good way to show races having a tenancy for certain abilities without making it impossible to start with the same modifier for the most common rolls. A half orc wizard may not have as much wis, dex or chr, as a high elf one (buying a 16 would be expensive) but, they still have half-orc like str and con and their most common roll and their saving throw DC is still the same. The just had to work harder and specialize more then the elf did. Part of the fun of a half-orc wizard is that you are not as good of a fit at being a wizard but reducing their most commonly used stat is a very crude, brute force, and annoying way to do that.
You may not have a problem with it, but were you amongst those complaining about stat bonuses because they "punish" you for playing a race/class combination that is against stereotype?

My point was that the proposition to set stat minima to BE in a particular race is going to exacerbate that problem, rather than solve anything. So if "why not make races have stat minima?" is proposed as an alternative to stat bonuses granted by race, you're doing away with that which is being complained about but exacerbating the underlying problem that makes the thing BE complained about.

"This backpack is too heavy, and it tears under the weight of the stuff in it. I want a lighter one."
"Okay, we'll replace the lightweight material with solid iron casing that you can strap to your back; it can now hold even heavier stuff without breaking!"

If you like having a heavy backpack, and holding heavy stuff in it, then obviously that's not a problem for you (unless it goes too far). But if you were solving the problems of people who want lighter backpacks by agreeing that it tears too easily so you're giving them one made of a sturdier but still-heavier material, you're missing the point of their argument.

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 03:50 PM

I don't know how to interpret this. Do you mean it causes friction to make up a new reason each time, or that it causes friction because you're RPing in a way that causes you to have Disadvantage?

Frankly, I would say: don't. Don't give yourself Disadvantage. Roll what you have. Then role play out how your character responds to what he noticed. If he's absent-minded, maybe he notices but doesn't say anything because it doesn't seem like something important to mention to him.

It was in response to the suggestion that you either give yourself disadvantage or add some/none of your modifiers to the roll depending on how much you believe you should do well on that roll. Doing that is going cause friction.

If you notice something that the whole party is looking for and then not mention it and the other players find out you knew it's going to cause problems. So it will end up being a case where you actually have great perception when it counts and just "not notice" things when it's not important. It opens up a giant meta-gaming can of worms.

Boci

2020-03-19, 03:59 PM

Frankly, I would say: don't. Don't give yourself Disadvantage. Roll what you have. Then role play out how your character responds to what he noticed. If he's absent-minded, maybe he notices but doesn't say anything because it doesn't seem like something important to mention to him.

How will giving yourself disadvantage cause friction, but hiding information from the others won't?

Segev

2020-03-19, 04:16 PM

How will giving yourself disadvantage cause friction, but hiding information from the others won't?

I don't know why either would, personally.

Though I am not saying, "hide information." I'm saying, "don't act like you know/believe it's important." If the whole party is actively looking for something, and you're the only one who sees it, one of the other PCs probably is going to mention it. At which point you can say, "Oh, you mean that?" and point it out (or something similar).

HOW you deal with the information you gain will portray your absent-mindedness better than any amount of failing to notice things.

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 04:18 PM

I don't know why either would, personally.

Though I am not saying, "hide information." I'm saying, "don't act like you know/believe it's important." If the whole party is actively looking for something, and you're the only one who sees it, one of the other PCs probably is going to mention it. At which point you can say, "Oh, you mean that?" and point it out (or something similar).

HOW you deal with the information you gain will portray your absent-mindedness better than any amount of failing to notice things.

So it's not a problem because of meta-gaming?

Segev

2020-03-19, 04:19 PM

So it's not a problem because of meta-gaming?

"Role playing is metagaming" is a new one to me, I admit.

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 04:22 PM

"Role playing is metagaming" is a new one to me, I admit.

The other PCs who mentions the thing that only your character saw is meta-gaming, yes.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 04:36 PM

sorinth:
you said you wanted to design a character that is bad at perception (worse that the rules currently specify) but really good at spell casting.

i provided several methods to accomplish that within the existing rule set

sorinth:
you said a character that is designed to be bad at perception can cause friction in a party

i agreed with you, designing a bad toon can cause fritction in a party.

sorinth:
you want to design a new ruleset

i said cool, do it in a new thread with a full design

i think we disagree on how to design a toon. you appear to say:

if i design a toon to have low perception by choosing mechanical features (not proficient in perception or new ruleset), that is okay
if i design a toon to have low perception by choosing roleplay features (my toon is distracted), that is bad

Segev

2020-03-19, 04:39 PM

The other PCs who mentions the thing that only your character saw is meta-gaming, yes.

No, you said something about being the only one who spotted something the others wanted to see. The specific circumstance I gave an example to noted that others were LOOKING FOR IT.

You're the one reading into it that this thing that nobody else knows to even look for is something only you saw but the others ask about.

If it's not something anybody's looking for, you can always auto-fail passive perception by being focused on something else. Tell the DM not to bother checking your passive perception score because you're distracted. By whatever it is you want to be, or by nothing, or by something undefined.

Passive Perception is something that is easy to undermine, and which several mechanics in the game offer penalties to for doing things fast, or focusing on other things, or any number of reasons. "I'm not paying attention" is definitely something you can say for your character. I don't see the problem here.

You want to not be good at it because you don't do it. Fine! Be not good at it! Don't do it!

BurgerBeast

2020-03-19, 04:47 PM

I watched some video on youtube I will not name where suddenly the author goes on a tangent how 5e racial stats are annoying him because small races do not get a Strength penalty and it is somehow unrealistic that on average Halfling or Goblin will be as strong as Human or Loxodon.

It may be my experience with 3.5, but I have nothing but contempt for this line of thinking.

Contempt for a line of thinking? What a bizarre attitude. People think what they think. You’re going to have contempt for someone for reasoning honestly? What if they’ve put significant thought into it (i.e. a lot more than you)? Would you rather they lied to appease you?

I can understand having contempt for someone who refuses to think or belligerently acts in opposition to what he thinks... but for thinking about something and having an opinion? What kind of world do you want to live in?

It locked races into stereotypes and made it outright impossible to try to play a concept that could break out of the mold.

False. It makes them 5% less likely to succeed, and always gives a trade-off (+5% to a different set of abilities).

I know, I spent a whole day once trying to desperately make an Orc bard that wouldn't actually be bad at things a Bard is supposed to be doing. I remember trying to find any way to make any build that would work for my idea of Goblin Fighter that actually works well in melee and the best result was still doing better with a crossbow than in the frontline.

Better with a crossbow =/= bad at melee

For a game that made so much bank on Drizzt, a drow who rises against the stereotypical portrayal of his race, it sure spend a lot of time making it a total pain to actually have a character who can do the same for any other "evil" race without ending up with a useless village idiot who merely deludes themselves into thinking they can do that thing "his people" aren't supposed to do.

What are you talking about. First off, Drizzt doesn’t break any ability stereotypes, which was the initial topic.

Drizzt breaks an alignment stereotype, and alignment was never meant to be universal. We a know there are evil dwarves.

I am extremely grateful that the penalties are gone in 5e because it opens a realm of possibilities.

It really doesn’t.

And yes, that means I can plan a Halfling whose entire deal is they punch harder than you'd expect, a Dwarven Bard or an Orc Paladin.

In a system where a halfling gets -2 Strength, halflings can still punch harder than you’d expect. A human with 18 strength punches much harder than you’d expect. A Halfling with 16 strength is equivalently remarkable.

The only thing I’d add is that there’s no real difference between giving one race a bonus or another race a penalty. Granted, when combined with ability increments and ceilings, there is. But that’s a little more complicated and beyond the scope of your topic.

47Ace

2020-03-19, 04:51 PM

You may not have a problem with it, but were you amongst those complaining about stat bonuses because they "punish" you for playing a race/class combination that is against stereotype?

My point was that the proposition to set stat minima to BE in a particular race is going to exacerbate that problem, rather than solve anything. So if "why not make races have stat minima?" is proposed as an alternative to stat bonuses granted by race, you're doing away with that which is being complained about but exacerbating the underlying problem that makes the thing BE complained about.

"This backpack is too heavy, and it tears under the weight of the stuff in it. I want a lighter one."
"Okay, we'll replace the lightweight material with solid iron casing that you can strap to your back; it can now hold even heavier stuff without breaking!"

If you like having a heavy backpack, and holding heavy stuff in it, then obviously that's not a problem for you (unless it goes too far). But if you were solving the problems of people who want lighter backpacks by agreeing that it tears too easily so you're giving them one made of a sturdier but still-heavier material, you're missing the point of their argument.

I probably could have said this better. My real problem with the current situation is that it suggest flavour and race/class tendencies by messing with with one of your most fundamental character abilities the ability score that you use the most in combat. It means that almost every time you try to do something you are worse at it then you could be. It may only be 5% of the time but you probably use your primary stat about 20 times or more a session. So on average every session you have to deal with the mechanical fact that you didn't due something due to your fluff decision. If the race/class tendencies are represented by something that doesn't have a mechanical you can't do that effect every session or so I don't have a problem with that. If my half-orc wizard isn't as good at making a type of save I make once or twice a session on average that's fine with me, he he has one or two less spells know so occasionally I can't find the right spell (or even a good enough spell) for the job that's fine with me, if I just get treated funny that's fine. Its the representation of fluff with something that fundamentally is not fluff, your primary ability score which is a function of your class and nothing else, that I have a problem with. Minimum ability scores work to to that, alternatively letting people buy a 16 (at a higher cost) but not start with a score above a 17 would do it too.

To go with the backpack analogy (probably poorly) the current situation is if you want to wear a backpack but for fluff reasons you (as a species A) are supposed to have a purse and the rules says OK you can have backpack but its zipper are missing the pull ties so every time you want to get something out of it (like a camera) you will struggle. I would be happier if the rules said something like, species A usually have purses there are some places they may not be let into with a backpack or they tire more easily with a backpack (as long exhaustion is not a super regular occurrence.)

We may be picturing a different version of stat minimums I am picturing a system where the starting stat cap is the same for everyone (16 or so) and races have minimums in the 10-13 range with point buy cost scaling similar to 5e's.

MaxWilson

2020-03-19, 05:00 PM

Better with a crossbow =/= bad at melee

Not to mention that, in 5E, crossbows are perfectly viable as a high-damage melee weapon, thanks to Crossbow Expert.

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 05:04 PM

sorinth:
you said you wanted to design a character that is bad at perception (worse that the rules currently specify) but really good at spell casting.

i provided several methods to accomplish that within the existing rule set

I actually said I wanted to design a cleric/druid that is good at spell casting but has low wisdom. The mechanical benefit of a high wisdom just happens to be skills like perception.

Yes you can RP your way into auto-fails or giving yourself a penalty, and that will almost assuredly result in other PCs getting annoyed.

Yes you can talk to the DM and or secretly just give yourself a bunch of penalties so that you don't have to RP out a reason each time. Less annoying to other players sure, but I fail to see how that is within the existing rule set.

sorinth:
you said a character that is designed to be bad at perception can cause friction in a party

i agreed with you, designing a bad toon can cause fritction in a party.

i think we disagree on how to design a toon. you appear to say:

if i design a toon to have low perception by choosing mechanical features (not proficient in perception or new ruleset), that is okay
if i design a toon to have low perception by choosing roleplay features (my toon is distracted), that is bad

Roleplaying out reasons to suffer penalties will cause friction, getting DM approval to simply give yourself a bunch of static penalties mechanically results in pretty much exactly what I suggested, the only difference being it's a generic solution instead of taking it case by case. For the most part the end result of both is the same.

sorinth:
you want to design a new ruleset

i said cool, do it in a new thread with a full design

I'm sure if the mods feel this would be better it's own thread they will let me know.

Segev

2020-03-19, 05:04 PM

I probably could have said this better. My real problem with the current situation is that it suggest flavour and race/class tendencies by messing with with one of your most fundamental character abilities the ability score that you use the most in combat. It means that almost every time you try to do something you are worse at it then you could be. It may only be 5% of the time but you probably use your primary stat about 20 times or more a session. So on average every session you have to deal with the mechanical fact that you didn't due something due to your fluff decision. If the race/class tendencies are represented by something that doesn't have a mechanical you can't do that effect every session or so I don't have a problem with that. If my half-orc wizard isn't as good at making a type of save I make once or twice a session on average that's fine with me, he he has one or two less spells know so occasionally I can't find the right spell (or even a good enough spell) for the job that's fine with me, if I just get treated funny that's fine. Its the representation of fluff with something that fundamentally is not fluff, your primary ability score which is a function of your class and nothing else, that I have a problem with. Minimum ability scores work to to that, alternatively letting people buy a 16 (at a higher cost) but not start with a score above a 17 would do it too.

To go with the backpack analogy (probably poorly) the current situation is if you want to wear a backpack but for fluff reasons you (as a species A) are supposed to have a purse and the rules says OK you can have backpack but its zipper are missing the pull ties so every time you want to get something out of it (like a camera) you will struggle. I would be happier if the rules said something like, species A usually have purses there are some places they may not be let into with a backpack or they tire more easily with a backpack (as long exhaustion is not a super regular occurrence.)

We may be picturing a different version of stat minimums I am picturing a system where the starting stat cap is the same for everyone (16 or so) and races have minimums in the 10-13 range with point buy cost scaling similar to 5e's.

That still messes with your primary stat: you're required to devote resources to these stats that aren't your primary stat.

And with stat penalties mostly gone, the only "punishment" you have is NOT getting a free boost. It can, at worst, put you a feat or ASI behind at low level, since everybody has the same stat maximums. Even Barbarians, who get to have 24s if they go all the way to their capstone, also get a +4 when they get that, so their effective max investment is still to 20.

JackPhoenix

2020-03-19, 05:07 PM

The friction doesn't come from having a cleric with low perception it comes when you are always providing a RP reason to give yourself disadvantage on a check.

The reason is always the same: the flaw you wrote on your character sheet "I'm absent-minded and don't pay much attention to what happens on around me" or whatever. Now you don't have to come up with a different reason every time, and it's clearly stated on your sheet.

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 05:12 PM

No, you said something about being the only one who spotted something the others wanted to see. The specific circumstance I gave an example to noted that others were LOOKING FOR IT.

You're the one reading into it that this thing that nobody else knows to even look for is something only you saw but the others ask about.

If it's not something anybody's looking for, you can always auto-fail passive perception by being focused on something else. Tell the DM not to bother checking your passive perception score because you're distracted. By whatever it is you want to be, or by nothing, or by something undefined.

Passive Perception is something that is easy to undermine, and which several mechanics in the game offer penalties to for doing things fast, or focusing on other things, or any number of reasons. "I'm not paying attention" is definitely something you can say for your character. I don't see the problem here.

So the whole party is looking for something, the DM asks everyone to make a check, you are the only one who passes the DC in large part to your ability mod and spot the thing.

If you roleplay it out so that you ignore what you saw and the other PCs act on what your character spotted they are meta-gaming. If they don't act on it and your PC just ignores it because you think he would be too distracted then they are likely to get quite upset.

You want to not be good at it because you don't do it. Fine! Be not good at it! Don't do it!

If my character is a wise old man with poor eyesight, I might very well still try and help but I should simply be bad at it.

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 05:17 PM

The reason is always the same: the flaw you wrote on your character sheet "I'm absent-minded and don't pay much attention to what happens on around me" or whatever. Now you don't have to come up with a different reason every time, and it's clearly stated on your sheet.

Those flaws don't have any actual mechanical penalties, yeah giving yourself a penalty is justifiable based on that flaw, it's also justifiable for the character with a flaw of being super greedy stealing from other PCs. But don't pretend it won't cause issues.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 05:25 PM

Roleplaying out reasons to suffer penalties will cause friction, getting DM approval to simply give yourself a bunch of static penalties mechanically results in pretty much exactly

Those flaws don't have any actual mechanical penalties, yeah giving yourself a penalty is justifiable based on that flaw, it's also justifiable for the character with a flaw of being super greedy stealing from other PCs. But don't pretend it won't cause issues.

This is the issue, right here!

you believe that mechanical restrictions are okay, but roleplay restrictions are wrong.

you think I play wrong.

JackPhoenix

2020-03-19, 05:27 PM

Those flaws don't have any actual mechanical penalties, yeah giving yourself a penalty is justifiable based on that flaw, it's also justifiable for the character with a flaw of being super greedy stealing from other PCs. But don't pretend it won't cause issues.

It's not the same thing. The first example only affect your character. The other example is an excuse to be a richard to other characters. That's PvP, and how much of an issue it'll cause depends on table. Mine wouldn't care much.

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 05:39 PM

This is the issue, right here!

you believe that mechanical restrictions are okay, but roleplay restrictions are wrong.

you think I play wrong.

Please quote me where I said it was wrong.

All I ever said was roleplay restrictions CAN impact other players at the table. If I have 20 str 10 dex barbarian who has a +3 Greatsword but for RP reasons uses a non-magical dagger with my Dex in a fight and your character dies in large part because I miss all the time and do almost no damage even when I hit, then there's a decent chance you'll be unhappy with me and the way I played. If I simply made a barbarian that wasn't optimal but tried everything to help and you still died it's unlikely you'd be upset with me.

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 05:43 PM

It's not the same thing. The first example only affect your character. The other example is an excuse to be a richard to other characters. That's PvP, and how much of an issue it'll cause depends on table. Mine wouldn't care much.

Except it doesn't just affect your character. If you fail a perception check the whole party might get ambushed and suffer the consequences.

For example, my character is on watch, the DM calls for a perception check and I say, "Well my guy is spending his shift on watch reading a book and not paying attention to anything outside of camp" and as a result a bunch of Orcs surprise everyone in their sleep, the other players are probably going to be upset with me.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 05:48 PM

Please quote me where I said it was wrong.
you didn't write it, but you think it

All I ever said was roleplay restrictions CAN impact other players at the table. If I have 20 str 10 dex barbarian who has a +3 Greatsword but for RP reasons uses a non-magical dagger with my Dex in a fight and your character dies in large part because I miss all the time and do almost no damage even when I hit, then there's a decent chance you'll be unhappy with me and the way I played. If I simply made a barbarian that wasn't optimal but tried everything to help and you still died it's unlikely you'd be upset with me.

I can talk to this.. almost like i was drawing from experience.
Baloo the sleepy wanderer was beloved at the table. The rogue with expertise in perception, and the paladin with observant had it covered.
We all hated the dumbass barbarian who refused to get his wis above 8, because sentinel and GWM were useless when he failed every saving throw.

Sorinth

2020-03-19, 05:53 PM

you didn't write it, but you think it

I can talk to this.. almost like i was drawing from experience.
Baloo the sleepy wanderer was beloved at the table. The rogue with expertise in perception, and the paladin with observant had it covered.
We all hated the dumbass barbarian who refused to get his wis above 8, because sentinel and GWM were useless when he failed every saving throw.

I hope you see the irony here.

Daphne

2020-03-19, 06:08 PM

That still messes with your primary stat: you're required to devote resources to these stats that aren't your primary stat.

If the +2/+1 came from the class, an Orc Wizard could start with 16 INT, 14 DEX and 14 CON. Assuming a 13 STR requirement (same score required for multiclassing).

Having -1 to WIS compared to an Elf Wizard isn't a big issue imo.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 06:14 PM

I hope you see the irony here.
i do not. but neither do you.

47Ace

2020-03-19, 06:30 PM

That still messes with your primary stat: you're required to devote resources to these stats that aren't your primary stat.

And with stat penalties mostly gone, the only "punishment" you have is NOT getting a free boost. It can, at worst, put you a feat or ASI behind at low level, since everybody has the same stat maximums. Even Barbarians, who get to have 24s if they go all the way to their capstone, also get a +4 when they get that, so their effective max investment is still to 20.

OK, I did just realize that I don't actually know what side of the argument You are on. I am saying that the I am OK with having mechanical penalties for strange class/race combos as long as they are to my primary stat or some other aspect of my character that I will be punished for every session or so on average. I am also imagining that what ever system we are using has the same starting and ending maximums regardless of race. I am not sure if you are saying that the proposed system has bigger penalties then I realize, or that you are stating your own opinion that the penalties are still too large or what?

Yes it is true that by level 12 the starting ability score difference is gone (8 for fighters, 10 for rouges) but that is not low level anymore and my understanding most games don't make it that far. The highest level a campaign that I have been in is level 8 and that is after doubling XP gain and then transitioning it a bunch of one shots where we gain a level every session or two.

If the +2/+1 came from the class, an Orc Wizard could start with 16 INT, 14 DEX and 14 CON. Assuming a 13 STR requirement (same score required for multiclassing).

Having -1 to WIS compared to an Elf Wizard isn't a big issue imo.

That is exactly my point.

BurgerBeast

2020-03-19, 06:40 PM

I actually said I wanted to design a cleric/druid that is good at spell casting but has low wisdom. The mechanical benefit of a high wisdom just happens to be skills like perception.

I suppose the way you might accomplish this is through a homebrewed flaw. Maybe you could negotiate a benefit to offset the flaw.

Otherwise, you’re asking for the reality of the D&D multiverse to be different than it is. You probably don’t like the answer, but it’s “no.”

Wisdom underlies druidic and clerical casting. It also underlies perception. Whatever underlies these abilities is the same, in the D&D multiverse.

Boci

2020-03-19, 07:56 PM

Wisdom underlies druidic and clerical casting. It also underlies perception. Whatever underlies these abilities is the same, in the D&D multiverse.

Only in 5th edition. In 4th edition you could make a strength based melee cleric, and in 3rd edition and PF, whilst you probably had to have high wisdom, due to the distinctly unbonded accuracy of the systems if you didn't put ranks in sense motive and perception (or spot/listen) you could play an oblivious cleric fairly effectivly. There even a few ways you could play a charisma based cleric in PF, and maybe 3.5, but I'm not certain on the latter.

JackPhoenix

2020-03-19, 09:16 PM

Except it doesn't just affect your character. If you fail a perception check the whole party might get ambushed and suffer the consequences.

For example, my character is on watch, the DM calls for a perception check and I say, "Well my guy is spending his shift on watch reading a book and not paying attention to anything outside of camp" and as a result a bunch of Orcs surprise everyone in their sleep, the other players are probably going to be upset with me.

Why did they let character known for not paying attention to their surroundings keep watch in the first place? My group doesn't let an elf keep watch, despite the benefits elves have, exactly because they know she's not reliable.

Would they also be upset if the orcs simply rolled well for Stealth and whoever was on the watch didn't noticed them either? If yes, the group has more serious problems than one character with a flaw....

Boci

2020-03-19, 09:21 PM

Why did they let character known for not paying attention to their surroundings keep watch in the first place? My group doesn't let an elf keep watch, despite the benefits elves have, exactly because they know she's not reliable.

Would they also be upset if the orcs simply rolled well for Stealth and whoever was on the watch didn't noticed them either?

No, because that's a failed roll, which happens in D&D, as oppose to the player choosing to not even try. Sure, mayhe this isn't a problem in your group, but I dont think it should be hard to see why that could cause friction in others.

JackPhoenix

2020-03-19, 09:25 PM

No, because that's a failed roll, which happens in D&D, as oppose to the player choosing to not even try. Sure, mayhe this isn't a problem in your group, but I dont think it should be hard to see why that could cause friction in others.

Would the same group have a problem with the aforementioned Wis 8 barbarian without Perception proficiency? Does that group have a list of required minimum ability scores and proficiencies for every character?

Boci

2020-03-19, 09:27 PM

Would the same group have a problem with the aforementioned Wis 8 barbarian without Perception proficiency? Does that group have a list of required minimum ability scores and proficiencies for every character?

No, as long as you try. I can't speak for every group, but I feel I can say with fairly high confidence that there will be some where:

"Roll perception? Sure. Okay, I rolled a ten, but with my modifiers...."

and

"Roll perception? Nah, my characters busy reading, I'll pass"

Are treated very differently.

Boci

2020-03-19, 09:37 PM

in both cases the player made a choice to be crappy at perception, why is one forgivable?

Because one is trying and the other isn't. Unless the DC is 20+, the barbarian could have succeeded. Also, it 5e, bonded accuracy. The crappy barbarian has 1 less a 10 wisdom character without perception proficiency.

I'm really struggling to get how this such a hard concept to comprehend. I get why some group would be okay with both, or neither. It really should be hard to see why some would only be annoyed at the reader.

JackPhoenix

2020-03-19, 09:39 PM

No, as long as you try. I can't speak for every group, but I feel I can say with fairly high confidence that there will be some where:

"Roll perception? Sure. Okay, I rolled a ten, but with my modifiers...."

and

"Roll perception? Nah, my characters busy reading, I'll pass"

Are treated very differently.

Again, why are you putting a character known for not paying attention on watch duty? Modify the watch schedule for other characters. Set some Alarm spells around the camp. Get a dog. I would do the same for the barbarian, because I know he's not a reliable watchman. "At least I've tried" won't help you when you wake up with an orc axe in your face. And no, I wouldn't be upset with either... at least the cleric has some personality.

Boci

2020-03-19, 09:41 PM

"At least I've tried" won't help you when you wake up with an orc axe in your face.

Yeah, but you probably don't need a perception check to notice the orc with the greataxe before they get within face-wakey range of a party member.

And no, I wouldn't be upset with either... at least the cleric has some personality.

I get that. Why are you finding it so hard to understand that not everyone else will too? This doesn't strike as one of those preferences where it hard too see why either side has one.

JackPhoenix

2020-03-19, 09:47 PM

I get that. Why are you finding it so hard to understand that not everyone else will too? This doesn't strike as one of those preferences where it hard too see why either side has one.

It's not that I don't understand.... I do. But the discussion started by claim that player being an anus and deliberately engaging in PvP is the same as player making a character incompetent in some stuff. There are in-game ways to compensate for the later, there aren't for the former. Well, unless the offended characters apply the axe-to-the-face method.

Boci

2020-03-19, 09:48 PM

It's not that I don't understand.... I do.

Okay good.

There are in-game ways to compensate for the later, there aren't for the former.

No, sure there are. We had a rogue who took more than his fair share. OOC no one minded, some groups would have but we didn't. INC the druid send his animal companion to steal back from the rogue one night.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 09:49 PM

I'm really struggling to get how this such a hard concept to comprehend. I get why some group would be okay with both, or neither. It really (NOT?) should be hard to see why some would only be annoyed at the reader.

*I think there should be a NOT in your statement, or i am very confused.

It sounds like you are saying that you: understand the case where a group would be angry at the barb, and not the cleric. because the cleric was upfront, and the barb is responsible for his character design. if so, then there isn't an issue (with me). the problem is that Sore made it clear there was only one correct view: mechanical penalties are better than roleplay penalties

to be fair, Sore, made an indefensible story that didn't stand up to Jack's basic question (if he is open about it, why put him in charge). I assume that was my case way, taken out of context.

Boci

2020-03-19, 09:52 PM

*I think there should be a NOT in your statement, or i am very confused.

Yes there should.

It sounds like you are saying that you: understand the case where a group would be angry at the barb, and not the cleric. because the cleric was upfront, and the barb is responsible for his character design. if so, then there isn't an issue (with me). the problem is that Sore made it clear there was only one correct view: mechanical penalties are better than roleplay penalties.

Yes. And that is an opinion in no way unique to Sore. Some groups play that way, some groups don't.

to be fair, Sore, made an indefensible story that didn't stand up to Jack's basic question (if he is open about it, why put him in charge). I assume that was my case way, taken out of context.

Because IC "I'm not very good at noticing stuff" could also mean "I have at best a +1 modifier to perception". Which can be fine for guard duty. You often don't need to make a perception check, you're just up to catch obvious stuff. |If its an issue, its an OOC issue, which won't be fixed with IC upfrontness.

JackPhoenix

2020-03-19, 10:01 PM

No, sure there are. We had a rogue who took more than his fair share. OOC no one minded, some groups would have but we didn't. INC the druid send his animal companion to steal back from the rogue one night.

Eh, it didn't sound as 'taking more than his fair share', but rather actively stealing from other characters. I think more players would be fine with the former than the later, though some would be upset with either.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 10:02 PM

Yes. And that is an opinion in no way unique to Sore. Some groups play that way, some groups don't

Because IC "I'm not very good at noticing stuff" could also mean "I have at best a +1 modifier to perception". Which can be fine for guard duty. You often don't need to make a perception check, you're just up to catch obvious stuff. |If its an issue, its an OOC issue, which won't be fixed with IC upfrontness.

i am not sure what you mean here.
if the player and character make it clear that they won't do a specify task for roleplay reasons and there are ways around it, then I am not convinced that there would be an out of character issue.
if the player and character do things that put the party at risk, whether for roleplay or poor mechanical design, then i can see an out of character issue.

Boci

2020-03-19, 10:05 PM

Eh, it didn't sound as 'taking more than his fair share', but rather actively stealing from other characters. I think more players would be fine with the former than the later, though some would be upset with either.

Rightm but how are there no "in-game ways to compensate" for that? Hell, actually stealing from you makes it easier to compensate for it in game, because you know for sure something gone missing. I get that not every group will okay with such IC drama, but that wasn't your objection.

i am not sure what you mean here.
if the player and character make it clear that they won't do a specify task for roleplay reasons and there are ways around it, then I am not convinced that there would be an out of character issue.

"We don't mind you roleplaying, but don't do so in a way that disadvantages us or requires us to take extrameasures to deal with your special snowflake character. Now take your turn on the watch"

That's is going to be a group attitude out there.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-19, 10:22 PM

"We don't mind you roleplaying, but don't do so in a way that disadvantages us or requires us to take extrameasures to deal with your special snowflake character. Now take your turn on the watch"

That's is going to be a group attitude out there.

See I agree with you...I said something like "if the player and character do things that put the party at risk, whether for roleplay or poor mechanical design, then i can see an out of character issue."
did you intentionally clip that?

nevermind, i am done... this is no longer about Ability scores and player races

Boci

2020-03-19, 10:27 PM

See I agree with you...I said something like "if the player and character do things that put the party at risk, whether for roleplay or poor mechanical design, then i can see an out of character issue."
did you intentionally clip that?

I'm just a bit confused as to how you can think intentionally failing a perception check doesn't put the group at risk/a disadvantage, which would make the post I responded to unneccissary.

sithlordnergal

2020-03-19, 10:35 PM

I'm just a bit confused as to how you can think intentionally failing a perception check doesn't put the group at risk/a disadvantage, which would make the post I responded to unneccissary.

I mean...failing a check on purpose can make for more entertaining outcomes. I shall often roll a dice, then say I rolled much lower, just to see what happened X3 Usually to the detriment of myself...

Boci

2020-03-19, 10:37 PM

I mean...failing a check on purpose can make for more entertaining outcomes. I shall often roll a dice, then say I rolled much lower, just to see what happened X3 Usually to the detriment of myself...

And that works for some groups and not for others, which is rather the keypoint. If a solution to a problem requires a different playstyle to the one you or your group have, then its not a very good solution, for you at least.

CheddarChampion

2020-03-20, 12:11 AM

One part of me is fine with how 5e does things.

The other part of me would like to see 6e tie combat ability to level, class, and feats while skills are tied to ability scores and level. Race could provide niche benefits to each in this scenario.

In such a system a level 5 halfling fighter would have just as good core fighting ability as a level 5 half-orc fighter (if they take the same feats and subclass) but the half-orc gets relentless endurance while the halfling rerolls 1's.

This would not fully level the playing field but I think it would go a long way towards allowing more character concepts and 'unoptimal/unusual' class/race combinations. The clueless cleric. The orc wizard.

patchyman

2020-03-20, 07:12 AM

I actually said I wanted to design a cleric/druid that is good at spell casting but has low wisdom. The mechanical benefit of a high wisdom just happens to be skills like perception.

Actually, this is quite doable if you focus on buff spells (as a cleric) and summoning spells (as a druid). Plus Mage initiate into another class for cantrips that match your high Stat.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-20, 07:30 AM

I'm just a bit confused as to how you can think intentionally failing a perception check doesn't put the group at risk/a disadvantage, which would make the post I responded to unneccissary.

where are you getting this?
i gave you guidance on how self limiting would go, you even gave that praise.
i explicitly clarified IN THE NEXT SENTENCE (that you ommitted), that the action doesn't put the group at risk.

i asked you if you intentionally clipped my statement. seeing that you again twisted my words, yes i can see it was intentional.
disappointed, but not surprised.

Boci

2020-03-20, 07:36 AM

where are you getting this?
i gave you guidance on how self limiting would go, you even gave that praise.
i explicitly clarified IN THE NEXT SENTENCE (that you committed), that the action doesn't put the group at risk.

Because some groups will be annoyed at such roleplay descisions, even when they don't put them at risk, a disadvantage is also enough to cause friction, even if it doesn't come with a risk. Unless you have a very broad of risk, you seem to too focused on that and not other aspects that can also cause friction in groups.

i asked you if you intentionally clipped my statement. seeing that you again twisted my words, yes i can see it was intentional.

Whatever fuels your persecution complex buddy.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-20, 07:40 AM

snip
intentionally misrepresenting my stance does not win you an argument.
you have done that 3 times in a row.
it isn't against the forum rules though, so have at it.

Boci

2020-03-20, 07:42 AM

intentionally misrepresenting my stance does not win you an argument.

You attributed an argument to me I never made and misrepresented my argument another time. I had no reason to assume either was anything but an honest mistake. But sure, the moment it happens to you it HAS to be intentional.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-20, 07:53 AM

You attributed an argument to me I never made and misrepresented my argument another time. I had no reason to assume either was anything but an honest mistake. But sure, the moment it happens to you it HAS to be intentional.

yes, i did think that you were supporting Sore's design, and you corrected me. i did not bring it up again.

you are arguing with me when i more than once said, i agree with you. the basis of your argument is to exclude my statements and attribute opinions that I explicitly refuted.

you keep suggesting that I will auto fail a roll that will cause harm to the party.
i reminded you that I laid out how to do self-imposed penalties; you admitted it wasn't a bad idea
i explicitly pointed that that in my party, i had 2 PCs that always succeeded on perception checks, so my rolls were unnecessary.

I asked you an explicit question about your intent in dropping the argument that says i argee with you,
rather than answer or ask for clarification on something, you deflected and again suggested that I would auto-fail.
if you acknowledge that you are confusing by my stance, ask for clarification; don't make one up that is explicitly false.

"But sure, the 3 moments it happens to you it HAS to be intentional."

Boci

2020-03-20, 07:58 AM

you keep suggesting that I will auto fail a roll that will cause harm to the party.

No I haven't. I have not once said you you personally would do that. I have simply said that doing so will not work with every group. I am talking about the game in general, not you.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-20, 08:05 AM

No I haven't. I have not once said you you personally would do that. I have simply said that doing so will not work with every group. I am talking about the game in general, not you.

you are correct; i was sloppy.

more correct would be:
you keep suggesting that I say auto failing a roll that will cause harm to the party will not cause friction.

"We don't mind you roleplaying, but don't do so in a way that disadvantages us or requires us to take extrameasures to deal with your special snowflake character. Now take your turn on the watch" That's is going to be a group attitude out there.
I'm just a bit confused as to how you can think intentionally failing a perception check doesn't put the group at risk/a disadvantage, which would make the post I responded to unneccissary.

Boci

2020-03-20, 08:10 AM

you are correct; i was sloppy.

more correct would be:
you keep suggesting that I say auto failing a roll that will cause harm to the party will not cause friction.

Again, I didn't. I was clarifying that not only will failing a roll and causing harm cause friction, but sometimes failing a roll and not causing harm will also cause friction. In the post you quoted from, I clarified at risk "or a disadvantage" which was a clause that seemed to be missing from your post. There are times when intentionally failing a perception check won't carry any risk for the party, yet some groups will still be annoyed.

And also if you can be sloppy, why can't I be sloppy too, why must I be intentionally doing it whilst you're just sloppy? The persecution complex was obviously me being flippant it I wasn't being serious, but it does genuinly feel like you have standards for when you misrepresent/phrase something and when someone else does towards you.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-20, 08:13 AM

Again, I didn't. I was clarifying that not only will failing a roll and causing harm cause friction, but sometimes failing a roll and not causing harm will also cause friction.

And also if you can be sloppy, why can't I be sloppy too, why must I be intentionally doing it whilst you're just sloppy? The persecution complex was obviously me being flippant, but it does feel like you have standards for when you misrepresent/phrase something and when someone else does towards you.

you can be sloppy. and when you are called out on it, quit pushing the narrative.

for instance, you weren't "clarifying that .."
you explicitly say "you can think intentionally failing a perception check doesn't put the group at risk/a disadvantage"

Boci

2020-03-20, 08:14 AM

you can be sloppy. and when you are called out on it; quit pushing the narrative.

for instance, you weren't "clarifying that .."
you explicitly say "you can think intentionally failing a perception check doesn't put the group at risk/a disadvantage"

Yes, I was clarifying the addition. You said at risk. I clarified "at risk or disadvantage". Sometimes intentionally failing a perception check won't put the group at risk, but will still cause friction.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-20, 08:21 AM

Yes, I was clarifying the addition. You said at risk. I clarified "at risk or disadvantage". Sometimes intentionally failing a perception check won't put the group at risk, but will still cause friction.

did i clarify the situation in which not participating in a check would not put the party at risk or disadvantage? yes. (#144)
did i accept that there are parties where it won't fly? yes. #160, #163(ish)

are you still trying to push the narrative that i don't think it will cause friction if it risks the party? yes. (180, 166)
are you still trying to push the narrative that i don't think it will ever cause friction? yes. (180, 178, 176, 172, 166)

Boci

2020-03-20, 08:27 AM

did i clarify the situation in which not participating in a check would not put the party at risk or disadvantage? yes. (#144)

Ah, this is the problem. You're basing my misunderding being intentional on a single post you made 22 post before my clarification one. Also noteworthy, I never responded to post 144 of yours. So yeah, the intentional angle is pushing it a bit, it much more likely I missed.

NaughtyTiger

2020-03-20, 08:37 AM

Ah, this is the problem. You're basing my misunderding being intentional on a single post you made 22 post before my clarification one. Also noteworthy, I never responded to post 144 of yours. So yeah, the intentional angle is pushing it a bit, it much more likely I missed.

no. i am basing this on being intentional on on the 6(?) posts where I said you were misconstruing my stance and leaving out key text.
i am sorry that i did not take the time to figure out which posts you haven't read or have forgotten about and inform you about them.

Boci

2020-03-20, 08:39 AM

i am sorry that i did not take the time to figure out which posts you haven't read or have forgotten about and inform you about them.

Oh its fine, I mean you did in the end, just opening with that next time would have spared some time and effort for both of us.

Segev

2020-03-20, 10:11 AM

OK, I did just realize that I don't actually know what side of the argument You are on. I am saying that the I am OK with having mechanical penalties for strange class/race combos as long as they are to my primary stat or some other aspect of my character that I will be punished for every session or so on average. I am also imagining that what ever system we are using has the same starting and ending maximums regardless of race. I am not sure if you are saying that the proposed system has bigger penalties then I realize, or that you are stating your own opinion that the penalties are still too large or what?

Yes it is true that by level 12 the starting ability score difference is gone (8 for fighters, 10 for rouges) but that is not low level anymore and my understanding most games don't make it that far. The highest level a campaign that I have been in is level 8 and that is after doubling XP gain and then transitioning it a bunch of one shots where we gain a level every session or two.

My own position is that 5e's method is fine. It does not actually penalize you for unusual race/class combos, except in the sense that particularly bad choices will have no synergy. (Or, in some of the Volo's monster races, there are a couple that have penalties to stats. Which I think is a poor design decision, especially when the races in question have little to no actual impressive abilities that justify such an unusual-to-5e penalty.)

In 3e, playing a half-orc wizard or sorcerer was painful, because the -2 to your casting stat hurts significantly, and the +2 to Strength is next to useless. The +1 to hit won't contribute much when you're never in melee if you can help it and are proficient with so little, and have such a lousy BAB. The -1 to your DCs will hurt, because scrambling to get high DC is important.

Ironically, the reason playing a -2 Str race hurt fighter-types wasn't because the -1 to hit was so bad, but because the -1 to damage was, and because encumberance is a thing that martials in particular have to watch out for thanks to their armor loads and their need for mobility.

In 5e, Strength saves are not as common as Constitution saves, but they're still pretty frequent. A lot of monsters and spells inflict things similar to Grappled or Restrained and offer Strength saves to escape them. A half-orc wizard enjoys his +1 to Strength saves from his racial modifier. It may not feel like much, but it's not nothing, thanks to bounded accuracy. Meanwhile, a wizard in particular isn't feeling punished for a lack of Int bonus unless you're going to argue that the only two races that possibly can play a wizard are half elves, humans, high elves and gnomes. Nothing else gets an int bonus (at least not in core, and I don't recall which non-core races might). (And humans, high elves, and half elves only get a +1 to it. Humans and half-elves by choosing a floating stat point to go there.)

Certainly, you're not penalized playing a half-orc wizard vs. playing a dwarf wizard, a halfling wizard, or even a wood elf wizard (I have a wood elf wizard in the game I run on Fridays, in fact, who is quite effective).

If you're penalized for playing a gnome or halfling barbarian, it's in the lack of facility with Heavy weapons and maybe the lack of walking speed, not in the stat modifiers.

The problem I see people complaining about is that 5e giving stat bonuses punishes players who want to "play against stereotype." Half-orc wizards and gnome barbarians, for instance, are punished by not getting stat bonuses for those classes, while other races do. I disagree that this is a punishment, or even that severe a problem for an effective build. It's less optimal at certain levels, but it's not crippling or even making you feel "weak" in actual play, most of the time, the way it might have in 3.PF.

The proposed solution of races requiring minimum stat investments creates or exacerbates the problem people are complaining about. Whereas I do not believe it is a real problem in the existing system, I believe it is more likely to be a real problem in the system proposed.

By requiring that you have at least a 13 Strength, for example, to play a half-orc, you're locking people's second-best stat into that in a lot of cases. Sure, they'll still put their best stat (maybe a 14, maybe a 16?) in their Int if the want to play a half-orc wizard, but now they can't put their second-best in Dexterity (which is often more important, as it's both initiative and armor class for wizards). Make half-orcs need a 13 in Strength and a 12 in Constitution, and somebody who has, say, a 16, 14, 13, 11, 11, 10 - a pretty good statline - will have to put the 14 and 13 in STrength and Constitution before they can even consider putting a stat into Int.

Remember, one reason the non-variant human has any viability at all is that all stats have more utility than they used to. There are no true dump stats (though Charisma and Int can come close, due to how rare the saves for them are).

If you feel punished having no bonus to your primary stat, then you'll feel punished having to lock your best or second-best stats into stats that you consider tertiary, at best.

To reiterate: it doesn't solve the problem people are complaining about; it makes it worse than it otherwise would be. At best, in terms of this problem, it doesn't make the problem real. It certainly doesn't solve it.

That said, it's an intersting idea. You could build an interesting system with it, I think; you'd be making races be things you're essentially "paying for" with your stat selections, so you'd want to make their racial features good enough to warrant that, while being careful not to make them too synnergistic so that builds that meet the requirements would always choose that race and always be for a particular stereotypical class.

Boci

2020-03-20, 10:34 AM

The problem I see people complaining about is that 5e giving stat bonuses punishes players who want to "play against stereotype."

One potential solution I had in mind for this would be to split racial bonuses into innate and cultural. It could be a bit messy, but would help with this problem and allow for more customization. Culture would either be from a shorter list of archetypes, or be incporated into expanded backgrounds. Each one would give stat bonuses, but only +1, so you could double stack them to get a total of +2. So an half-orc sorceror would be just as strong as a high-elf great weapon fighter, but an half-orc fighter would be stronger than both.

Segev

2020-03-20, 10:42 AM

One potential solution I had in mind for this would be to split racial bonuses into innate and cultural. It could be a bit messy, but would help with this problem and allow for more customization. Culture would either be from a shorter list of archetypes, or be incporated into expanded backgrounds. Each one would give stat bonuses, but only +1, so you could double stack them to get a total of +2. So an half-orc sorceror would be just as strong as a high-elf great weapon fighter, but an half-orc fighter would be stronger than both.

The easiest way to do this would be via either Backgrounds, or, more cleanly in 5e, subraces. "Oh, you're a high elf raised by the drow? Use the drow subrace; you're just unusually pale."

Boci

2020-03-20, 10:48 AM

The easiest way to do this would be via either Backgrounds, or, more cleanly in 5e, subraces. "Oh, you're a high elf raised by the drow? Use the drow subrace; you're just unusually pale."

Sure, but the subraces are very limited. D&D Elves are D&D elves so they've got about 2 million at this point, but most races have closer to 2 and several have none. Backgrounds is the better approach. There's a lot of them but the list could be simplified, criminal and charlatan for example could likely be merged.

47Ace

2020-03-20, 10:59 AM

My own position (snip)

That seems reasonable I may have a different opinion but so what.

The problem I see people complaining about is that 5e giving stat bonuses punishes players who want to "play against stereotype." Half-orc wizards and gnome barbarians, for instance, are punished by not getting stat bonuses for those classes, while other races do. I disagree that this is a punishment, or even that severe a problem for an effective build. It's less optimal at certain levels, but it's not crippling or even making you feel "weak" in actual play, most of the time, the way it might have in 3.PF.

You may be right about not feeling week in actual play. I don't know I haven't tried it and can't imagine that I will given that it feels too wrong to me to not start with an 16 (18 with stat rolling unless I am really unlucky) in my primary stat. My other complaint (that i really haven't mentioned in a while) is that it also affects playing what I would consider stereotypical combos like Hobgoblin fighters, Fire Genasi sorcerer, or Paladin Protector Aasimar. But, that is more of a race design problem then a larger game design problem.

The proposed solution of races requiring minimum stat investments creates or exacerbates the problem people are complaining about. Whereas I do not believe it is a real problem in the existing system, I believe it is more likely to be a real problem in the system proposed.

(snip)

To reiterate: it doesn't solve the problem people are complaining about; it makes it worse than it otherwise would be. At best, in terms of this problem, it doesn't make the problem real. It certainly doesn't solve it.

I happen to disagree with your analysis of the proposed solution. But, I have not play-tested it or anything so I can't really argue against your point other then to say I don't think it would be a problem. I could be wrong though.

That said, it's an intersting idea. You could build an interesting system with it, I think; you'd be making races be things you're essentially "paying for" with your stat selections, so you'd want to make their racial features good enough to warrant that, while being careful not to make them too synnergistic so that builds that meet the requirements would always choose that race and always be for a particular stereotypical class.
Yeah, I think that I roughly what I think too. I also understand the frustration of people complaining about how D&D isn't a type of game different from the type of game modern D&D actually is.

Segev

2020-03-20, 11:15 AM

That seems reasonable I may have a different opinion but so what.

(...)

I happen to disagree with your analysis of the proposed solution. But, I have not play-tested it or anything so I can't really argue against your point other then to say I don't think it would be a problem. I could be wrong though.

Yeah, I think that I roughly what I think too. I also understand the frustration of people complaining about how D&D isn't a type of game different from the type of game modern D&D actually is.

All fair. I can agree, or agree to disagree, on these points. My only play experience with them is that the wood elf wizard doesn't seem underpowered, nor does the eladrin warlock. (I forget if eladrin get their secondary bonus to Int or Cha, though.)

You may be right about not feeling week in actual play. I don't know I haven't tried it and can't imagine that I will given that it feels too wrong to me to not start with an 16 (18 with stat rolling unless I am really unlucky) in my primary stat. My other complaint (that i really haven't mentioned in a while) is that it also affects playing what I would consider stereotypical combos like Hobgoblin fighters, Fire Genasi sorcerer, or Paladin Protector Aasimar. But, that is more of a race design problem then a larger game design problem.This one, while I respect your opinion, I want to discuss a little more.

I happen to share your instinctive predilection to want a 16+ on my primary stat, and prefer to have a +2 from race to shove onto it as well. It just is...instinct. Having a +1 is okay if I can get a 17, maybe a 15 in there, as that's almost as good as a 16 or an 18.

However, I want to say that, if you're deliberately playing against stereotype, then the race should synergize less than well with the class choice. Otherwise, why is it against stereotype? You see more high elf wizards in part because they're smart and thus prone to brainy classes. You see more half-orc barbarians and fighters because they're brawny and naturally inclined to those professions.

If you're playing the stereotypically anti-archetypal half-orc wizard, you want to be unusual. You don't want it to be raising the question of, "Why aren't there more of these, when it's no harder to be one than to be a high elf wizard?" The more effort you have to put into making it "work," the more it justifies the anti-archetypal experience.

Amechra

2020-03-20, 11:27 AM

To be fair, there used to be stat prereqs for classes back in 1e - Fighters were the catch-all class that didn't need any particular stats because you might've failed to qualify for anything. Races also had ability score minimums and maximums, so it's not like the idea is completely foreign to D&D in general.

The thing is, 5e does punish you for playing "against type" if you're trying to play a MAD character. Monks are the biggest issue here - if you don't have a bonus to Dexterity and/or Wisdom from your race, you're probably going to die unless you're playing a race with alternate unarmored AC calculations. Because your AC relies on having decent modifiers for both of those ability scores, and you heavily nerf yourself if you try to get your AC from any other source.

---

The real issue is that 5e is both heavily reliant on ability scores and really stingy on offering ability score increases (especially if feats and multiclassing are in play). As it stands, choosing between a race that has a bonus to an ability score and one that doesn't is the difference between maxing out that ability score at 8th level and doing it at 12th level. Which is another weird thing - why should your primary ability score cap out so early?

Sam113097

2020-03-20, 11:32 AM

...However, I want to say that, if you're deliberately playing against stereotype, then the race should synergize less than well with the class choice. Otherwise, why is it against stereotype? You see more high elf wizards in part because they're smart and thus prone to brainy classes. You see more half-orc barbarians and fighters because they're brawny and naturally inclined to those professions.

If you're playing the stereotypically anti-archetypal half-orc wizard, you want to be unusual. You don't want it to be raising the question of, "Why aren't there more of these, when it's no harder to be one than to be a high elf wizard?" The more effort you have to put into making it "work," the more it justifies the anti-archetypal experience.

I agree. While it is true that some race/class combos don’t synergize, I feel that 5e’s bounded accuracy and design philosophy as a whole make it easier for those non-optimized characters to keep up and not feel outclassed. Because stats almost always max out at twenty, it is possible to catch up to more optimal characters as far as primary stats go. In my own experience, I once DMed for a Half-Orc Wizard that was very effective in combat, and, though her Int. mod may have been lower than, say, the half-elf sorcerer’s Cha. mod or the Wood Elf rogue’s Dex. mod, it was only by one point, and she caught up by level 8