Better alternative than stat-less races

[Psyren]

As I mentioned on page one, my primary thought on the matter of the house rule is we already have a system for skill set as aposed to atrltributes, which is proficiency. Adding a set of scores is fine, but also an additional set of numbers to track, and if it is just a set of numbers to make the class a go-go it doesn't need to be fungable like ability scores.
Double proficiency bonus and half the effects of ability scores was my recommendation. The exact numbers could be tinkered, but it generally reduces the concerns with ability score chasing and solves a minor problem I have with ability scores, which is they are more role defining that class for the most part.

What about things you're not proficient in? Saves for example - most characters are only proficient in 2/6, a few more in 3/6. You can compensate for this in 5e by having decent scores in the off save(s) you're worried about, but this would cripple that.

If core combat competencies are left out of it and we're just looking at stunting, why is an halfling having a slight edge at being Quick while a dragonborn has an edge being Powerful a bad thing, while a dwarf will have an edge on resisting poison over my elf no matter how much I write "iron stomach" on my character sheet. (And if I convince the DM to give me an actual Iron Stomach feat, that would tie up a feat slot that the dwarf could use for something else useful instead.) Once you reach the level of what sort of stunts you do instead of how well you do your basic job, that sounds about right for racial differentiation if we're going to have racial differentiation at all.

Of course core competencies are going to remain tied to stats, because if WotC even thought about decoupling them there'd be raging about how the resulting game was "not D&D". But if that weren't the case, when would it be okay to say that one character will forever have an edge on something because of their racespecies. And if the answer is "never", what's the point of racial features existing anyways?

You can have an edge on things. As you yourself mentioned for instance, dwarves get an edge on resisting poison over elves due to species, even in the UA, and it's much more interesting than a mere Con boost. As LudicSavant said earlier, it's an additional feature, rather than changing the cost of an existing feature.

[qube]

How does Armor interact with this?

The same way armor interacts with dexterity: Leather armor is 11 + you Defense combat style attribute, while full plate is 18 flat.

Narrative justification: you only need to look at, for instance, fencing, vs Buhurt (modern fighting where ppl wear heavy medival armor). If you're lightly armored, you'll have to fight more defensively. if you're heavily armored, you can run straight into your opponent and keep bashing till one KOs.

Mechanicla justification: The system is set up in such a way that characters remain equally MAD/SAD - and Heavy armor is a way to make characters less MAD (fighters/paladins don't need to boost dexterity score to ability score

I've actually suggested something similar to the OP but just for attack bonuses and spell DCs, because I think that change alone would drastically reduce the relative importance of primary stats.

I have considered something simelar, but was left with the implication that people would then start to boost their second attribute.

single-attribute-dependant would have free reign over his stats, while a dual-attribute-dependant characters would become single-attribute-dependant.

Something I think might be worth linking, from about three or four months ago.

that looks quite interesting at first glance, I'll definately will take a closer look!

The problem with this is that the fantasy of being a "dex fighter" or "str fighter" does not begin and end at making and receiving attack rolls. Ability checks and saving throws happen during combat too.
...
In short, even with your added layer, stats are still more than just cosmetic addons to a character even during a fight.

Quite true. And carrying capacity is also relevant for combat.

• The amount of javalins you can carry
• the fact you might be able to carry a dying ally (or the mcguffin) away from danger.
• I recently had a campaign with a very low STR wizard (rolled stats. I think it was STR 3 or something) that multiclassed in cleric - but still did not wear ANY armor, because he simple couldn't carry that much.

The bar of this system is not perfect equality - it's equivalent combat capability. As such,

• As I've done before, I'll point to the fact there's a not uncommon variant rule to let warlocks use int instead of charisma.
• Or as you point out, how one can already make STR or DEX fighters (the latter using ranged or finesse weapons)

Different? Definately. But considering nobody is saying, for example, that "rogues suck because frontliners need high STR saves", the fact our non-strength fighter will now end up not having such a high strength saving throw, is a mute point. People faun more of weahter the dex or str fighter can have the higher AC.

Having a different skillset & saveset simply has very little impact on combat capability. Thats

• quite dependant on what you encounter
• and even then ... considering fighters gain strength saving throw proficiency ... I seriously wonder if medium dex & str saves are better or worse then high str low dex saves.

ASIs make sense on any of it. Race, background, class. Any of it could influence your stats.

Quite true.

The less the game pushes for maximizing primairy stats, this all becomes a possibility.

As I mentioned on page one, my primary thought on the matter of the house rule is we already have a system for skill set as aposed to atrltributes, which is proficiency. Adding a set of scores is fine, but also an additional set of numbers to track, and if it is just a set of numbers to make the class a go-go it doesn't need to be fungable like ability scores.
Double proficiency bonus and half the effects of ability scores was my recommendation. The exact numbers could be tinkered, but it generally reduces the concerns with ability score chasing and solves a minor problem I have with ability scores, which is they are more role defining that class for the most part.

That indeed does sound like an interesting idea.
Especially as proficiency goes from +2 to +6 (about a modifier of a good stat), one could for example disstribute one full proficiency, two half proficiencies, and a 0 over the 4 categories.

Though that feels more like personal preffence to me (I know players who like 'proficiency to skill', I know players who love the 3E ranks to skills system).

[Psyren]

The bar of this system is not perfect equality - it's equivalent combat capability.
...
Having a different skillset & saveset simply has very little impact on combat capability.

AC and HP are combat capabilities but saving throws aren't? Uh... okay...

Not that I agree with the premise, that skills aren't combat capabilities, and non-combat capabilities shouldn't matter when comparing two species, anyway.

[Bosh]

This really comes down to two opposing desires:
1) Play any race/species, any class, no difference.
2) Synergistic race/species and class combinations, with good choices and bad choices.

The sort of race design I like is when the ability scores bonuses a race gets and their racial abilities clash.

For example the races that need mountain dwarf stats don't need armor and weapon profs. So while pre-Tasha's dwarf fighters were quite good things like mountain dwarf wizards were also quite viable (if not strictly optimal) since medium armor on a wizard is quite nice.

Same goes for high elves, wizards need int but an extra centrip isn't a big deal for them but it's very very nice on many non-wizard classes who don't need the bonus to int.

Goblin is an extreme version of this since it makes being a goblin rogue really redundant so that goes a bit too far...

Would like to see more things along those lines so that a race is solid at things that make use of their stat bonuses while their racial abilities are more useful to classes that don't really need their stat boosts. Something like half-orcs being tough enough to make them a viable choice for squishier classes, that sort of thing...

Also post-Tasha's stat rules do still have some race/class combos be much better than others. Mountain dwarves are comparatively pretty **** fighters now for example.

[Liquor Box]

Not with the edit for precision, no.

I expect we will differ on this, but to me it still does. It suggests that very weak characters cannot be useful. If we had fixed ability scores average half orcs would be stronger than average halflings. But if halfling and halforc PCs tended to be the same strength, that suggests that mostly unusually strong halflings, or unusually weak halforcs are PCs. To me this seems odd - surely weak halflings (who bring other skills to the table) are also viable PCs, and halfling PCs shouldn't necesarily usually be stronger member of the species?

So rather than saying 'a gnome fighter has to be as powerful as an orc fighter', I want to instead say that, for some combination of purpose and plan and aesthetic of play and campaign context (low level, high level, low gear, high gear), I should feel like I would be worse off if I accepted an offer from the GM to keep the fluff of the gnome but get the orc's mechanics instead.

But this i what the game (and the fixed ability scores) are designed to achieve. There is a combination of purpose and plan and context where the gnome is better mechanically than the orc. That may not be a fighting type character because it's strength disadvantage might hold it back, instead it might be a wizard class (or Monk, I gather from this thread). I feel like i may be missing your point here?

I think it is ok (and in fact preferable) for the gnome to be good at some things (classes) and less good at others (classes), and it lessor size and strength are a pretty obvious distinguishing factor between it and an orc which you'd expect to make it tend to be less good at brute force type roles. I'm not against it still being good at more niche fighter builds, which don't rely on strength, but it strikes me as odd a gnome being a strength based fighter on the same level as an orc (on average). Perhaps you can help me with where (and whether) you disagree?

Its less about viability or silliness and more about what exactly 'meaningful diversity' should (IMO) mean. Having a bunch of things which are different in fluff but which play the same isn't really engaging with diversity, its avoiding the question - at that point, better just do all-human IMO. Having a bunch of things which are basically forced choices if you care at all about optimizing to your own purposes fails to actually be diverse - if you play a fighter you play the best race for fighters, etc. The path through the paradox is to have differences which do matter and strongly, but which matter differently to different players because they catch on to different things you could try to be optimizing for.

Why do you think having some races better for fighters than others is bad for diversity? Other races might be good at different things. I guess it's bad if you had one obvious race for each class (so you only ever saw fighters of that class, etc), but that's not the case as I understand it - your choice of fighter (if you want to optimise) is not forced, it is just limited.

3, maybe 4 classes that a given race is actually good for is not some stunning example of flexibility.

No, orcs probably aren;t the most flexible race. Humans perhaps are. But that's not a bad thing, each race has its advantages. That orcs, being one of the more specialised races, are still optimal for several (three or four) classes is great game design - they are good at certain things but no so pigeon holed they have only one option.

You say that ability scores are "meant to make a race stand out"

But objectively they don't. WRT strength, for example, you either have a bonus or you don't. All races either (can) have a bonus to STR, or can't. A Half-Orc isn't stronger than a mountain dwarf or half elf or human or bugbear or goliath. Meanwhile everything that doesn't have that modifier is also the same. Gnomes are as strong as elves are as strong as tabaxi are as strong as halflings, etc.

Fixed ability scores create two categories of race, for any given stat: those that have a bonus to the stat, and those who don't. Dividing every race into two categories doesn't make them distinctive. There's no differentiation among the halves.

Bolded for emphasis. Yes, that does make those two groups distinct. Even more so when they aren't divided 50/50, but instead only a few races have the bonus and most do not.

It could be better of course - it would be better if some races had a bonus to str (say orcs) some have a penalty (halflings and gnomes) and some have no modifier (dwarfs and humans). So I agree splitting them up more would add more differentiation and be better.

What post-tasha's has been done, is to throw away fixed ability scores as a source of distinctiveness AND REPLACE IT WITH OTHER FEATURES.

Yes, and that sucks. The fixed ability scores were better because they tended to have more consistent mechanical in game effect and therefore are more meaningful. Mind you, I don't necessarily mind the other features, as they also add to the distinctiveness of the races in minor ways - but they should be an addition to stat differences rather than a replacement.

Look at PHB dragonborn. Look at Fizban's Dragonborn. Tell me with a straight face that the Fizban's Dragonborn is less interesting. Tell me that the MMOM Goliath is less interesting than the EE version.

Unless I'm missing something Fizban's Dragoborn has all the features of PHB Dragoborn (incl fixed ability scores), but with some additional features for different dragon colours? So it doesn't remove the important features like str and cha bonuses?

[KyleG]

Maybe a solution is to suggest "typical" classes for race instead of the asi. Eg. Drow of x are fanatical worshipers of thier god (clerics) whilst many of their men become powerful wizards. The tabaxi of y are scouts (rogues) whilst others become lone explorers (rangers). Those born in the mountains of z survive in a savage unforgiving environment (barbarians), and are guided and empowered by signs and portents (div wizard).

[NichG]

But this i what the game (and the fixed ability scores) are designed to achieve. There is a combination of purpose and plan and context where the gnome is better mechanically than the orc. That may not be a fighting type character because it's strength disadvantage might hold it back, instead it might be a wizard class (or Monk, I gather from this thread). I feel like i may be missing your point here?

I think it is ok (and in fact preferable) for the gnome to be good at some things (classes) and less good at others (classes), and it lessor size and strength are a pretty obvious distinguishing factor between it and an orc which you'd expect to make it tend to be less good at brute force type roles. I'm not against it still being good at more niche fighter builds, which don't rely on strength, but it strikes me as odd a gnome being a strength based fighter on the same level as an orc (on average). Perhaps you can help me with where (and whether) you disagree?

I think you may be. One limit would be, what if you just made everything identical in all ways? In that case, of course every combination is valid, but also it shouldn't matter to you if you swapped the mechanics of one for another, because they're all identical. So this isn't what I want. Another limit would be that there are synergies such that any player could objectively say 'if you're playing a wizard, this is the best race to be' or 'if you're playing a fighter, this is the best race to be'. That's not what I want.

What I want is something where one player will say 'orc wizard is the best wizard, any other race would be a bad pick for me!', and another player will say 'elf wizard is the best wizard, any other race would be a bad pick for me!' and another player will say 'kobold wizard is the best wizard, any other race would be a bad pick for me!', and none of them will be wrong, because each race provides something which is good for a player whose skills and sense and goals align with that thing. The player who likes high calculated risks with big impact has a best choice and will disagree with the player who likes to play Xanados chess who in turn will disagree with the player who likes to just throw caution to the wind and improvise who will disagree with the player who wants their contributions to take the form of modifying the exploration and economics of the game even if they're just plinking away when it comes to combat itself.

Why do you think having some races better for fighters than others is bad for diversity? Other races might be good at different things. I guess it's bad if you had one obvious race for each class (so you only ever saw fighters of that class, etc), but that's not the case as I understand it - your choice of fighter (if you want to optimise) is not forced, it is just limited.

In general, optimization puts stress on diversity, because it tells you that one thing is a better choice than something else in some sense. In order to make optimization and diversity of outcomes compatible, you have to drive the process of optimization with a diversity of sense in which something can be better than something else. I think putting the burden on the player to intentionally choose to be suboptimal when the game bottlenecks things into a single form of value is bad game design - its asking the player to decide whether roleplay or optimization is more important to them. But if you design more carefully, so that there are many different senses of 'best' and things play into enriching that, you can avoid those things being in opposition. A gnome wizard can be the best wizard to play in the moment, as can an orc wizard, a kobold wizard, a pixie wizard, a githzerai wizard, etc. But to get there, you have to take a holistic view of the game that resists boiling things down into repeatedly checking d20 vs the same number derived the same way as the primary source of a character's effectiveness.

[t209]

Maybe a solution is to suggest "typical" classes for race instead of the asi. Eg. Drow of x are fanatical worshipers of thier god (clerics) whilst many of their men become powerful wizards.

Well, this is forgetting worshippers of Eilistraee...but not sure since their "clerics" act more like dexterous fighter.

[Witty Username]

What about things you're not proficient in? Saves for example - most characters are only proficient in 2/6, a few more in 3/6. You can compensate for this in 5e by having decent scores in the off save(s) you're worried about, but this would cripple that.

Well I have too possible ideas:
-the first would be nothing, weak saves are factored already into class balance and I am not necessarily against PCs having weak saves personally. But I recognize that could be a concern if the table is skittish.

- my second thought is increasing the number of saves each class gets to 3, maybe with some tinkering with the Strong - Weak save ratio depending on class, maybe 2 strong saves and 1 weak for the martials:
(Spitballing)
-Barbarian (Str, Con, and Wis)
-Paladin (Con, Wis, and Cha)
-Rogue (Dex, Int, and Wis)
-Ranger and Monk (Str, Dex, and Wis)
-Fighter (Str, Dex, and Con)
And following that 1 Strong and 2 weak for Casters:
(More Spitballing)
- Bard (Dex, Int, and Cha)
- Cleric and warlock (Str, Wis, and Cha)
- Druid (Str, Int, and Wis)
- Sorcerer (Str, Con, and Cha)
- Wizard (Int, Wis, and Cha)
- and maybe Artificer (Con, Int, and Cha)
This doesn't so much solve the issue so much as mitigates its effects. Having more strong points to make up for the weak points being more significant.
This way has some side effects, martials having better defenses than casters mostly for ambiance. And generally PCs being a little more resilient.

Shift some class abilities around that get displaced, like Ranger and Rogue. Maybe just swap to getting another save proficiency if it comes off as a significant issue.

[Psyren]

I expect we will differ on this, but to me it still does. It suggests that very weak characters cannot be useful. If we had fixed ability scores average half orcs would be stronger than average halflings. But if halfling and halforc PCs tended to be the same strength, that suggests that mostly unusually strong halflings, or unusually weak halforcs are PCs. To me this seems odd - surely weak halflings (who bring other skills to the table) are also viable PCs, and halfling PCs shouldn't necesarily usually be stronger member of the species?

What? I can't see any relation between this and what I said There is no "tendency" for adventurers beyond having elite stats, as represented by Array/Point Buy/4d6k3. Those stats don't have to be allocated to strength or any other specific attribute. You can be a physically weak adventurer and be, not just useful, but outright potent.

Unless I'm missing something Fizban's Dragoborn has all the features of PHB Dragoborn (incl fixed ability scores), but with some additional features for different dragon colours? So it doesn't remove the important features like str and cha bonuses?

Fizborn have floating ASIs.

Maybe a solution is to suggest "typical" classes for race instead of the asi. Eg. Drow of x are fanatical worshipers of thier god (clerics) whilst many of their men become powerful wizards. The tabaxi of y are scouts (rogues) whilst others become lone explorers (rangers). Those born in the mountains of z survive in a savage unforgiving environment (barbarians), and are guided and empowered by signs and portents (div wizard).

What's the "typical class" for a Harengon? Sea Elf? Hadozee? Thri-Kreen?

Even if you can come up with one that most people would agree on, what value does that add?

Well I have too possible ideas:
-the first would be nothing, weak saves are factored already into class balance and I am not necessarily against PCs having weak saves personally. But I recognize that could be a concern if the table is skittish.

It's nothing to do with being "skittish" and everything to do with player choice. Under current 5e, if I have a weak save that I want my character to be decent at, I can allocate points to the relevant ability score, for example monks being at least okay at Wisdom saves makes sense to most people. But under your proposal, even with max Wisdom they top out at +2, at least until they hit 14. Sucking at Wisdom for the vast majority of their career is not how a lot of people imagine monks to be.

[Witty Username]

Also post-Tasha's stat rules do still have some race/class combos be much better than others. Mountain dwarves are comparatively pretty **** fighters now for example.

Mountain dwarves are substantially better fighters post-Tasha's, due to the proficiencies they get, I once joked that unlike most Dwarves, a Mountain dwarf fighter is the most dwarf to ever dwarf, because while most Dwarves get one tool for flavor (smith's, brewer's or mason's tools). Mountain dwarf can start with all of them and then some. Before background and class.
Compared to, PHB Mountain dwarf fighter, which has no racial features beyond reduced speed and poison resistance.

"But my table doesn't use tools"- use tools, they are fun and interesting.
--
For my half ability bonus thought, here is the most coherent way I curently envision the numbers:
20, +3
17-19, +2
14 - 16, +1
11- 13, +0
8-10, -1
5-7, -2
2-4, -3
1, - 4

And here is prof bonus but I am still very much mulling it over:
1st, +4
3rd, +5
5th,+ 6
7th, +7
9th, +8
11th, +9
13th, +10
15th, +11
17th, +12
(Optional) 19th, +13

[OldTrees1]

Maybe a solution is to suggest "typical" classes for race instead of the asi. Eg. Drow of x are fanatical worshipers of thier god (clerics) whilst many of their men become powerful wizards. The tabaxi of y are scouts (rogues) whilst others become lone explorers (rangers). Those born in the mountains of z survive in a savage unforgiving environment (barbarians), and are guided and empowered by signs and portents (div wizard).

I don't like this idea. A "typical" class would be mostly a cultural trait and I don't see a reason to tie those to Species. Consider the Halflings, their typical class is the Barbarian, provided we are talking about the Halfling Barbarian tribes in Eberron. However even in those tribes the tendency comes from the society rather than the species. A Golaith that grew up in an Eberron Halfling Barbarian tribe would also be more likely to be a Barbarian. However the Goliath would probably need a bigger dinosaur mount, or go without a mount (and focus on running to keep up).

[Bosh]

What I want is something where one player will say 'orc wizard is the best wizard, any other race would be a bad pick for me!', and another player will say 'elf wizard is the best wizard, any other race would be a bad pick for me!' and another player will say 'kobold wizard is the best wizard, any other race would be a bad pick for me!', and none of them will be wrong, because each race provides something which is good for a player whose skills and sense and goals align with that thing. The player who likes high calculated risks with big impact has a best choice and will disagree with the player who likes to play Xanados chess who in turn will disagree with the player who likes to just throw caution to the wind and improvise who will disagree with the player who wants their contributions to take the form of modifying the exploration and economics of the game even if they're just plinking away when it comes to combat itself.

Well in actual practice it's hard to get EVERY race to be a solid choice for EVERY class since there are just so many combinations to consider. But getting within the right ballpark would be nice. Maybe giving +2 in a stat was too much of a blunt instrument for making some races clearly better at some classes than others, but I don't think it makes sense to keep stat bonuses off the table completely since having a race that has stat bonuses that are good for classes A, B, and C and then abilities that are good for races D, E, and F etc. etc. makes it easier for a race to be viable for many classes. Otherwise trying to make a class that's solid at basically EVERY class means trying to come up with abilities that are equally good for every class (halflings rerolling ones, gnome saving throw bonuses, etc.) or a whole bunch of stuff that tries to cover all the bases.

For example, let's take Gnomes. As it stands their +2 to int makes it hard to justify for anything except for wizards, even though dex and con are nice for most classes, and gnomish cunning is freaking awesome for anyone at all.

I think if you gave gnomes a bit more stuff that's useful for non-wizards and/or cut down their int bonus to +1 that'd work.

For example give gnomes an ("underfoot") ability to move through the spaces of enemies easily that wouldn't be very useful for wizards because they wouldn't want to eat the opportunity attacks (and very often have misty step in any case) but would be useful for some other classes (like a barbarian/fighter dodging through the enemy front line in order to get at the enemy leader). With a few things like that I'd love to play a gnome barbarian (with perhaps a dip in war wizard) because I'd be maneuverable and also able to shrug off mental saving throws (a huge barbarian weakness) with relative ease.

Think a good overall approach is: "OK, this race is good at certain classes because it has X stat, now what can we give to it that would be more useful to the classes that DON'T use X stat than ones that do so that they'd be useful for a bunch of classes."

[Amechra]

The way that 5e handles ability scores in general is honestly really bad.

Everyone is MAD in almost exactly the same way — you want Constitution for HP, Dexterity (or Strength) for AC, and [Insert Stat Here] for your cool class features. The only ones that get away from this paradigm in any meaningful way are Armorer Artificers, Fighters, and Rogues, who combine their "cool class features" stat with their AC stat. On top of that, the game is really stingy with improving ability scores after character creation — by the end of Tier 2, you've gotten a grand total of four additional points of ability scores.

The original way of handling racial ASIs face-planted directly into this because of a third problem — every class has 2 or more ability scores that they do not care about in the slightest. So you have a situation where the bonus you get from your race is very significant (it's an ASI and a half worth of stats!), but where playing against type means that you waste those bonuses (you want to play a High Elf knight-in-shining-armor Paladin? Cool, you just wasted that +2 Dex/+1 Int) for nothing in return.

Tasha's approach of decoupling your initial stat boosts and letting you arrange them however you want was done in an incredibly janky way, and mostly serves as a bandaid over the broken system.

...

Honestly, you could clean it up pretty easily with something like...

1. Each class has a list of three ability scores it cares about.
2. You pick two ability score arrays — 16/16/13 or 17/14/14.
3. Your other three ability scores are whatever the heck you want them to be.
4. Races who are noteworthy for a given ability score have a prereq of 15+ in that ability score.

You're playing an Elf (who are notably graceful)? Assign your Dexterity as one of your highest ability scores if your class cares about Dexterity, or just have a 15+ Dexterity if your class doesn't care about it. Done and dusted.

[Captain Cap]

[*] Your other three ability scores are whatever the heck you want them to be.

What do you mean by this exactly? That they are simply worthless for the class (but are still determined in some codified way, like rolls or point buy) or that you are free to arbitrarily choose the score (independently of points, rolls, arrays etc.)?

[Amechra]

Just pick whatever score seems appropriate.

Unless I'm missing something major, this is basically only going to affect save and skill bonuses.

[Captain Cap]

Just pick whatever score seems appropriate.

Wouldn't this push people to just choose the highest possible score, paradoxically creating characters that are worse at their primary abilities than secondary ones?

Unless I'm missing something major, this is basically only going to affect save and skill bonuses.

I don't really agree with that "only": skills and saves can be still be relevant, and so related ability scores shouldn't be "free".

On the other hand, if 3 ability scores out of 6 were completely useless to a given class, I think it would be better to just get rid of ability scores in general.

[qube]

AC and HP are combat capabilities but saving throws aren't? Uh... okay...

I consider "combat capability" is how good someone is in combat.

A lot of things contribute, with varying importance, to this, but neither AC, HP, or saving throws, or even carrying capacity "are" it.

You are free to make an argument why a fighter with STR & DEX saving throws +11/-1 should be considered significantly more capable in combat then one with or +5/+5 on his saving throws, ... but I don't see it.

As is, I see it as desired side effect:

• The Viper and The Mountain may be equally good in combat
• The Viper will dodge the fireball, while The Mountain laughs at the wolf trying to trip 'm.

Maybe a solution is to suggest "typical" classes for race instead of the asi. Eg. Drow of x are fanatical worshipers of thier god (clerics) whilst many of their men become powerful wizards.
~~ KyleG

Well, this is forgetting worshippers of Eilistraee...but not sure since their "clerics" act more like dexterous fighter.
~~ t209

... wielding a longsword (don't forget: Eilistraee's favored weapon is the bastardsword - not a rapier).

[Theodoxus]

On the other hand, if 3 ability scores out of 6 were completely useless to a given class, I think it would be better to just get rid of ability scores in general.

I'd be ok with this, though it would fundamentally be 'not D&D' at that point. But lots of OSR games reduce or eliminate the classic SDCWICh scores.

Four 'attributes' would cover it:

Martial Offense: Covers attacks with weapons/unarmed. If you really want to, you could subdivide it into Melee and Ranged, but it's not wholly necessary. Class and Feat options could provide boons/banes instead to the divide.

Martial Defense: Covers AC bonus and Saves against Physical effects (again, modified by Class and Feat options)

Magical Offense: Covers attacks with spells and special abilities (Stunning Strike, perhaps Battlemaster Maneuvers, etc.)

Magical Defense: Covers AC bonus for unarmored classes and Saves against Magical effects - modified..


Then derived stats based on the above:

Initiative Bonus is the combination of both Offenses.
HP Bonus is the combination of both Defenses.


This amplifies OPs attempt to create a narrative around the player's concept of their character. A lithe elf dashing around a battlefield slicing with a longsword - or poking with a rapier; vs. a buff orc menacing with a massive waraxe... both could be built with the exact same attributes, just described differently.

Spellcasters work similarly. You pick the class that matches your desired spell list and casting style (Wizard for arcane magic and inscribed in a spell book; Cleric for divine magic you can customize; Druid for primal magic you earn; Warlock for gifted arts and short rest mechanics, etc...

What I've been trying to actually do is something even more generic with spell classes. Instead of codified classes, you pick the option you want:

Power (spell list) Arcane, Divine, or Primal
Style: Book (as Wizard), Gift (as Warlock), Innate (as Sorcerer) or Patron (as Cleric/Druid)

Then you just call yourself whatever you want. "I'm a Cleric of Torm, but He sends me scrolls I scribe into my Holy Book." or "I'm a Wizard, Harry, but I dabble in Primal magic I will into creation." or "I'm a Psion..." or "I'm a Bloopman..." whatever.

D&DOne will make that mod a lot easier with their divided spell lists.

[Psyren]

I consider "combat capability" is how good someone is in combat.

A lot of things contribute, with varying importance, to this, but neither AC, HP, or saving throws, or even carrying capacity "are" it.

Then why do you have "combat style scores" for AC and HP (DEF and THG respectively) but not for saving throws, which are still tied to ability scores in your proposed system?

As is, I see it as desired side effect:

• The Viper and The Mountain may be equally good in combat
• The Viper will dodge the fireball, while The Mountain laughs at the wolf trying to trip 'm.

In other words, the Mountain takes more damage from the fireball, while the Viper is good at mitigating both.

[NichG]

Well in actual practice it's hard to get EVERY race to be a solid choice for EVERY class since there are just so many combinations to consider. But getting within the right ballpark would be nice. Maybe giving +2 in a stat was too much of a blunt instrument for making some races clearly better at some classes than others, but I don't think it makes sense to keep stat bonuses off the table completely since having a race that has stat bonuses that are good for classes A, B, and C and then abilities that are good for races D, E, and F etc. etc. makes it easier for a race to be viable for many classes. Otherwise trying to make a class that's solid at basically EVERY class means trying to come up with abilities that are equally good for every class (halflings rerolling ones, gnome saving throw bonuses, etc.) or a whole bunch of stuff that tries to cover all the bases.

For example, let's take Gnomes. As it stands their +2 to int makes it hard to justify for anything except for wizards, even though dex and con are nice for most classes, and gnomish cunning is freaking awesome for anyone at all.

I think if you gave gnomes a bit more stuff that's useful for non-wizards and/or cut down their int bonus to +1 that'd work.

For example give gnomes an ("underfoot") ability to move through the spaces of enemies easily that wouldn't be very useful for wizards because they wouldn't want to eat the opportunity attacks (and very often have misty step in any case) but would be useful for some other classes (like a barbarian/fighter dodging through the enemy front line in order to get at the enemy leader). With a few things like that I'd love to play a gnome barbarian (with perhaps a dip in war wizard) because I'd be maneuverable and also able to shrug off mental saving throws (a huge barbarian weakness) with relative ease.

Think a good overall approach is: "OK, this race is good at certain classes because it has X stat, now what can we give to it that would be more useful to the classes that DON'T use X stat than ones that do so that they'd be useful for a bunch of classes."

The reason its hard to do with ability scores is:

- Ability scores are fungible with point buy. So 'how much does it cost to make X spread with race Y?' is a question with an objective answer across all players
- Classes are mostly SAD, meaning that for a given class, the above gives you a 'cheapest' race to play that class (which in turn means more points to spare to put the less important stats where you want)

So the most complete solution would be to redesign the relationship between classes, actions, and ability scores in a serious way first - make every class seriously MAD and avoid there being any one ability score that drives the class-specific things that have to happen every round. For example: remove attack bonuses and save DC increases from ability scores entirely; make Strength modifier determine the minimum/maximum you can roll on any damage die including spell damage pools; make Dexterity determine movement speed, crit range, and even the number of sub-action-like-things you get per round; make Constitution the stat which is used for all saving throws; make Intelligence increase the number of uses-per-interval you have on all limited-use-pool abilities and also (at half-modifier) act as a stacking bonus on rolls the character has Advantage for or a stacking penalty on rolls the character has Disadvantage for respectively; make Wisdom determine the size of AoEs and a character's threatened area and have Wisdom bonuses to AoEs ignore friendly fire; make Charisma determine the number of magic items someone can use.

That would help as a start - but of course you still have to address the point-buy issue. Personally at minimum I'd say if you're going to have racial bonuses let them break the cap at 20, since that's not something you can just buy with points. Another way to do it would be to just say that 'weak' racial stat bonuses just determine the minimum you can roll on an attribute check - a race with a +1 can't roll a 1, a race with a +2 can't roll 1 or 2, etc. And then have 'strong' bonuses be actually strong enough that they take you places you just can't get to by shuffling around points, like giving a +4 that breaks cap. But I think this is something where just working in the same space as point buy, especially with bounded accuracy, is causing us design conflicts.

I don't think the above is a bad idea to do with attributes, but I think the best designs are going to be by giving each race really unique things that either change basic assumptions of play or modify things orthogonally to the existing stuff in the system. New, different sensory abilities - the old 1e automatic-secret-door detection thing, or the ability to make out spaces in stone, or the ability to see magic natively at all times, or the ability to perceive emotions as visible auras, always sense the shortest path to exit an enclosed space if it exists, etc... An ability to derive more benefit from buffs that you're receiving or something that lets you take over concentration of a beneficial spell cast on you. An ability to derive more benefit from gear in general. An ability that grants free access to a few low-level abilities from any other class of your choice. Abilities that let you combine actions, like casting a cantrip with every melee attack (where the ability gives you the cantrip, not from your class) or something like a free spring attack where you can interleave movement and attacks or spell-casts freely. An ability that gives you a chance of preserving any consumable you use - magic item charges, supplies, etc. Movement modalities - 5ft teleports were a good idea from 4e, gaining a climb speed on plant-life, gaining a 'glide' speed on falling (move horizontally up to your glide speed when falling an equivalent distance, before fall damage accumulates).

There's a lot more design space potential than I think gets used...

[qube]

Then why do you have "combat style scores" for AC and HP (DEF and THG respectively) but not for saving throws

... because they contribute more.

... I mean, maybe I'm playing D&D completely wrong, but the last time I boosted the CON of my fighter, I didn't do it because of that sweet sweet +1 on consitutution saving throws.

In other words, the Mountain takes more damage from the fireball, while the Viper is good at mitigating both.

Yeah, that's not how it works AT ALL.

From a dual-number perspective, The mountain has slightly better saves - because there's a slightly bigger return on investment if numbers become large.

the most common way this gets explained in D&D is by example of AC. when the opponent rolls a 1d20 without modifiers,

if your AC is 19, you get hit 10% of the timeif your AC is 20, you get hit 5% of the time.
... that's half the amount.

if your AC is 11, you get hit half the timeif your AC is 12, you get hit 45% of the time.

But D&D isn't a dual number system. there are six saving throws, and saving throws in general take second place after AC anyway. Or simplified

The Mountain has sligthly better saves then The Viper ... but if you go an entire campaign without rolling a strentgh single saving throw, The Viper has significantly better saves The Mountain.

The larger return of investment is a smaller effect, compared to what eseenstial is DM/campaign/... dependency.

[Psyren]

... because they contribute more.

... I mean, maybe I'm playing D&D completely wrong, but the last time I boosted the CON of my fighter, I didn't do it because of that sweet sweet +1 on consitutution saving throws.

Not on a fighter, no - they're already proficient, remember? - But every single caster in the game needs to worry about Con saving throws, because concentration is a thing that exists, so they are boosting Con for that reason too. That +1 can be the difference between an extremely expensive ongoing spell being able to help win the fight or being a waste of a round and a slot.

I've also definitely boosted Wis because of Wisdom saving throws - not on a Fighter, but on a Barbarian. When my Barbarian screams shrilly and flees the frontline because of a fear effect, not only does that harm the fantasy of the class in general, but it also screws me mechanically because I can't keep my rage going when I spend my action dashing away, and rage is a precious resource at most levels.

Yeah, that's not how it works AT ALL.

But it is. For the wolf to trip you, it first needs to hit you, and they both have the DEF to deal with that. But the fireball is still a Dex save, which only the Viper has, because saves aren't normalized under your system. And if the Mountain's Dex will always be suboptimal because of his race, your system continues to fail at appealing to people who don't want that.

[zlefin]

I hope my comments and thoughts are'nt too redundant, though with the thread length I fear they are.

I wonder about the notion of having a default racial stat modification, but with the explicit note that PCs are atypical, and thus are inherently free to use a floating stat mod of their choice. That arguably preserves the world-building implications, while lessening the effects on PCs. otoh, 5e is not very simulationist, and the rules for buildings NPCs and monsters already make them work in a very different fashion from PCs, so the notion of there being 'defaults' at all may not really make sense; this is rather different from 3.5, where all beings are made using the same basic rules.


The design goals of 5e make it harder to make more stats relevant. 5e really aims to minimize fiddliness and small effects; which makes it a lot harder to make each stat relevant to combat. Whereas in 3.5, and some others systems, there's already a lot more numbers making things go up and down, and lots more stats in general; so adding side effects that help secondary/tertiary stats be more useful rather than total dump stats is hard for 5e.


I've often thought it would help if instead of stat increases just plain improving a stat, it was more point-buy-ish, so you get point buy points instead, making it more worthwhile to try pumping secondary stats at times.

[Amechra]

Wouldn't this push people to just choose the highest possible score, paradoxically creating characters that are worse at their primary abilities than secondary ones?

If that turns out to be a problem, we can just cap the arbitrary stats at 15 (or whatever). I've found that people tend to be surprisingly good at self-policing, though.

I don't really agree with that "only": skills and saves can be still be relevant, and so related ability scores shouldn't be "free".

On the other hand, if 3 ability scores out of 6 were completely useless to a given class, I think it would be better to just get rid of ability scores in general.

The thing is that, while skills and saves are relevant, they're also a part of the game where there's a lot more mechanical wiggle room. Think about how giving a Barbarian with 8 Int a Headband of Intellect is way less impactful on their central do-my-barbarian-thing stuff than giving it to a Wizard with 17 Int, even though it's effectively +2 Int for the Wizard and +11 Int for the Barbarian.

Put me down on the "get rid of ability scores" boat — they're mostly the way they are because they're sacred cows at this point.

[JNAProductions]

If that turns out to be a problem, we can just cap the arbitrary stats at 15 (or whatever). I've found that people tend to be surprisingly good at self-policing, though.

I feel I should remind people of how I do ability scores in my 5E games...

Ability Scores: Pick six numbers. These are your pre-racial stats. No number may be higher than 18 or less than 8. You may modify them freely up until the game starts, and may pick duplicate numbers.

It's worked pretty well for me and my players.

[Amechra]

Didn't you have to set the minimum to 8 because people kept showing up with Constitutions of 3 and the like?

I remember you mentioning that somewhere.

[JNAProductions]

Didn't you have to set the minimum to 8 because people kept showing up with Constitutions of 3 and the like?

I remember you mentioning that somewhere.

Yup! Constitution and Wisdom often saw horrendous numbers, and I was just... No. You gotta be healthy enough to adventure. :P

[qube]

Not on a fighter, no - they're already proficient, remember? - But every single caster in the game needs to worry about Con saving throws, because concentration is a thing that exists

They need to worry about concentration so much that they rather boost their CON stat over taking resience(CON)? or warcaster?

... OK ...

I've also definitely boosted Wis because of Wisdom saving throws - not on a Fighter, but on a Barbarian. When my Barbarian screams shrilly and flees the frontline because of a fear effect,

Here's a fun fact: I'm currently DMming Dungeon of the Mad Mage. 2 layers ago, I gave each member of the four-man-party a simple item: "the next time you fail a save with only 1 point difference, you make it instead"

it hasn't triggered for any player yet, And it's not that they forgot - I'm keeping track of it as well. And FYI - that's ALL saves.

I'm quite happy for you that your barbarian's wisdom saving throw was 1 higher ... but .. you're missing a second part of your argument. The part where that becomes significantly relevant in combat, and not an anecdotal single event on how 15 sessions later, that +1 made a diffierence.

For the wolf to trip you,...

I'm sorry, I thought it was clear this was a narative stand-in for "source that causes one to roll strength saving throws". I'm not litterly pitting a CR 1/4 wolf against LVL 20 fighters with maxed out stats.

But it is ...For the wolf to trip you, it first needs to hit you, and they both have the DEF to deal with that. But the fireball is still a Dex save, which only the Viper has

Fun fact. That's about litterly what I said when I pointed out

Or simplified:

The Mountain has sligthly better saves then The Viper ... but if you go an entire campaign without rolling a strentgh single saving throw, The Viper has significantly better saves The Mountain.

But of course, I also pointed out the quite obvious nuance that this is only one side of the coin.

I hope my comments and thoughts are'nt too redundant, though with the thread length I fear they are.

I wonder about the notion of having a default racial stat modification, but with the explicit note that PCs are atypical, and thus are inherently free to use a floating stat mod of their choice.

(kind of adressed before, but no problem :) )

In a nutshell, the problem with that is quite simple: that makes +2 "normal" for that race. Meaning you advocate there'd be atypically strong, healthy, smart, etc... elves ... but for some reason, there are no atypically dexterious elves.

Imagine if the game system was halfing centered instead of human centered: imagine a world where you can have small strong humans, small dexterious humans, small smart humans, small charismatic humans etc ... but for some odd reason tall humans don't exist.
... sounds kind of weird, doesn't it?

[BRC]

In a nutshell, the problem with that is quite simple: that makes +2 "normal" for that race. Meaning you advocate there'd be atypically strong, healthy, smart, etc... elves ... but for some reason, there are no atypically dexterious elves.

Imagine if the game system was halfing centered instead of human centered: imagine a world where you can have small strong humans, small dexterious humans, small smart humans, small charismatic humans etc ... but for some odd reason tall humans don't exist.
... sounds kind of weird, doesn't it?

What it means is that, among PC's, somebody who plays "In-line" with their race isn't playing somebody extraordinary.

Let's say an average human ranger NPC has 14 Dexterity

Aragorn (Dex 16) is Unusually Dextrous for a human, even amongst Rangers. He put his PC +2 into Dexterity.

Legolas (Dex 16) is about typical for an Elven Ranger. Since Elves "Default" to a +2 to dexterity, he just stuck with the default.


Aragorn is great with a bow because he's Aragorn, Legolas is great with a bow because he's An Elf. There's no option to play Super-Legolas, who is to normal elves what Aragorn is to normal humans.

Which might be fine? It depends on what you care about. We're building a game here not creating a Perfect Fantasy World Simualtor, so even if we allow that Super-Legolas may EXIST, maybe we just don't let you play as him.

Of course, that also waters down the fantasy of being the Superhumanly Dextrous Elf. Yeah in-setting Elves are more dextrous than humans, but players will primarily interact with PCs, so if Aragorn and Legolas have the same dexterity, Legolas's player doesn't get to feel like he's playing a member of a superhumanly dextrous race. He's just another dude.


So we have two goals here

Goal 1) Preserve the, well, fantasy of a fantasy race. Elves are graceful, Orcs are Strong, Dwarves are Tough, Gnomes are Smart. Playing a character from one of these should feel like you're playing somebody graceful, strong, tough, or smart.



Goal 2) Allow any race/class combo to be reasonably viable, without players feeling like the game is just straight punishing them for not playing an "On-Brand" Race-class combo. You shouldn't feel like the game is punishing you for playing an Orc Wizard or an Elven Barbarian.



What most comes to mind for me, although this would be awkard to implement, would be to just mechanically acknowledge that some race/class combos are more synergistic than others. IIRC 3.5 had a system for giving monsters class levels based on whether the class in question worked with the monster's statblock. An Ogre Fighter's CR went up much faster than an Ogre Druid.


Is there some system that says "Okay, you're playing an Orc Wizard. You have 10 strength, this makes you super scrawny for an Orc, have some other benefit to account for putting your +2 elsewhere"


Another option is to do a bit of a thematic sleight-of-hand. Playing an Orc doesn't mean you need to ACTUALLY be stronger than a human, it just means you should FEEL stronger. Building in some explicit abilities around Orcs are Strong, like
"Orcish Strength: Proficiency Bonus/Long Rest do one of the following:
gain advantage on a strength check or save
reroll a damage die
Treat your strength as +2 for the purposes of carrying capacity for 1 hour"

All of which can also help the hypothetical Orc Wizard

So Orc Barbarian and Human Barbarian both have 16 strength, but the Orc gets to occasionally pull out some minor strength-themed benefits to account for Orcs are Strong. So you get to check the "feels like my character is Strong" box without really unbalancing the game.