So there's been some discussion of racial ability score adjustments that focus on politics. From my view, though, the biggest issue with ability score adjustments is min-maxing.

The key point here is that +X strength for a fighter or +X intelligence for a wizard is worth a lot more than the same bonus in a non-prime stat, like strength for a wizard. The fighter uses strength-based rolls very frequently, while the wizard doesn't - and vice-versa for intelligence. That means that if you have a strength-focused character and are then allowed to choose race, one gets the best bang for the buck by choosing a strength-boosting race like half-orc. That's true regardless of whether you got that high strength by random roll in order, roll and arrange, or point-bought.

This isn't true if one picks race before roll-in-order stats, or if race is based on a random roll. If these are true, then statistically, even with stat mods, 35% of half-orcs will have higher intelligence than strength.


If race is chosen after stats, though, a lot of player will choose half-orc when they already have a high strength score to boost min-max or just because they feel "high strength fits being a half-orc". I think this is failing to represent what the stat mod is claimed to represent - because PCs won't match the distribution, but will be skewed by player psychology.

If there is choice, then I dislike encouraging this sort of min-maxing. In design systems like Fantasy Hero, then if I want to make an 18 Strength character, I pay the same for 18 Strength regardless of whether I'm a strong human like Conan or Imaro, or if I'm a half orc.

Quote from: jhkim on September 26, 2022, 04:43:19 PMFrom my view, though, the biggest issue with ability score adjustments is min-maxing.

If race is chosen after stats ... a lot of player will choose half-orc when they already have a high strength score to boost min-max or just because they feel "high strength fits being a half-orc". I think this is failing to represent what the stat mod is claimed to represent - because PCs won't match the distribution, but will be skewed by player psychology.

If there is choice, then dislike encouraging this sort of min-maxing.

This is a cogent point. Ironically, the biggest argument against it in practice is (I think) traceable to another element of player psychology: one could account for represented distributions by requiring players to roll stats within certain key ranges before they could choose a particular race, in the same way one used to have to roll CHA 17 to play a paladin -- but this then imposes the requirement that anybody who wants to play a member of a particular race may be "forbidden" from doing so on the grounds of his die rolls. Nobody liked this when it limited the classes they could choose, and nobody would like having their PC race choices limited this way either.

A more effective way to do it would be simply to provide unique characteristic generation methods for every single race-class combination available in the game -- so, for example, if you want an elven wizard you are by definition going to have an INT score between 13 and 20, because elven wizards roll 1d8+12 for that score -- but given the volume and design time this would take up, I'm not surprised nobody's taken that approach.

Personally, I'd say the easiest way around this is simply having minimums and/or maximums for a race and/or class that the character wants to play--no bonuses or penalties applied after attributes are determined.  Roll up the attributes, assign them as you will, and if you meet the racial/class minimums and don't exceed the maximums, you're ok.  No bonuses.

Or you go with a points-based system like GURPS (which I do like)...but that's a different kind of game than D&D.

The way most people play D&D now, point buy is really the best option. And not just point buy of the Ability Scores, but the racial powers as well. So, Darkvision might be two points, same for Thick Skin (armor class bonus) or pay one point for Sharp Claws, etc.

Then they could just have a list of "suggested" powers for each race. For example, if you want to play an elf, they suggest having the Darkvision and Gender Nonbinary powers.

I handled this issue in my system (which starts with scores of 3d6 in order) by:

1. Designing the system to expect ability score boosts over time, and setting up the process to explicitly reward trying to improve a lower score.  That is, you may prefer to improve your best score, but you are more likely to get a bigger boost with something heretofore neglected.

2. Related to #1, skewing the mods so that they are not even across the distribution.  If every N points of ability gets you a plus, and there is no mechanism to make the higher points of ability cost more, then players will nearly always skew towards the latter.  Whereas, with the skew, it takes about 2 points on average to remove a minus but 3 points on average to get another plus (and more once you get past a 17 on a typical 3-18 range).

3. Making racial boosts be a pick from a limited list, and in some cases enforcing the pick to the lowest score.  So my dwarves can pick either "Might" or "Will" (at least one of which will be useful to almost any character except a classic D&D wizard/glass cannon), with an option to pick Dexterity instead if its particularly crummy compared to the other two scores.  Meanwhile, the elves get to boost Lore, Dexterity, or Perception, whichever is lowest. 

From a classic D&D perspective, I'd say a good fix would be to simply have every race boost their worst score from a set list (like I did with elves), with humans getting a boost on either their worst or their second worst.  There, you've skewed the distribution by race, but cut out nearly all possibilities for min-maxing. 

I have mixed views on this topic because different approaches have different pros and cons, and they all can be valid (or at least viable) in their own way. But I definitely think that some races are simply more inclined towards some areas of development than others. Sometimes this can mean that that race possesses superhuman abilities, but other times it might simply be that they tend to have above human average levels of ability in those areas, without necessarily exceeding human (or system) maximums. Where to draw the line is part of the trick.

In a lot of ways it depends on what you're trying to represent, but balancing issues are also a consideration, as well as the minimum and maximum range of abilities that you're willing to allow in the game.

Ability Score modifiers provide a hard distinction that might allow you to effectively surpass normal score maximums or reduce them. But they're kind of a brute force measure that lends itself to min/maxing and is not always significant unless the modifiers or the scores themselves are already high. A +2 bonus might not mean much when adding it to an average score of 10 or so, for example (a score of 12 is certainly not superhuman, but simply above average), but when added to a score of 18 it brings the total to levels that weren't even possible (for most PCs at least) in earlier editions of D&D (20 is almost godlike, or at least superhuman).

This is sort of a paradox with ability modifiers. On the one hand they allow you to exceed limits and might provide added, potentially significant benefits if they're the actual key ability for your class and you already have a high base score. But on the other hand they mostly provide a pip when working with average base score that barely feel supernatural. Yet if you provide a higher modifier (like +4) in an effort to ensure higher average scores (10+4=14, which is high, but not extreme) for that race through modifiers alone you end up with ridiculous scores at the other end (18+4=22, which is freaking godlike already).

This is part of the reason I sometimes think that setting up minimum/maximum requirements (and perhaps a suggested average score as well) for races might sometimes be a preferable way to handle racial ability ranges, rather than using ability modifiers. Setting up minimum score also provides a way to gate certain races, unless you roll high or are willing to devote extra points in point buy. However, min/max requirements don't adequately account for areas were a race exceeds normal human maximums, unless you're working with some sort of point-buy system. And even then you're stuck in a situation where you have to pay extra to achieve levels of ability that are presumably supposed to be natural to your race. So they're not perfect either, but they're better at handling lower end racial inclinations (where a race simply has above human average, but not necessarily superhuman abilities) than raw modifiers.

Rece-specific generation methods might also be another way to do it, but I'm not a fan of them because I find them kinda clubky and they require you to select your race before hand and can't change it later without starting all over again if you change your mind midway through character creation. But they might be a more direct way to ensure certain minimums and maximums, as well as certain averages for every race. However, they require you to come up with a custom range for every race in the game, and possibly every creature. Though, this is kinda already the case with min/max requirements, only here you'd have to work dice mechanics into it.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on September 26, 2022, 07:17:13 PM
The way most people play D&D now, point buy is really the best option. And not just point buy of the Ability Scores, but the racial powers as well. So, Darkvision might be two points, same for Thick Skin (armor class bonus) or pay one point for Sharp Claws, etc.

Then they could just have a list of "suggested" powers for each race. For example, if you want to play an elf, they suggest having the Darkvision and Gender Nonbinary powers.

Sure. Build-your-own options like kits have been popular variants in D&D for decades, not just with later 5th edition.

Also, a lot of D&D racial abilities are more like skills based on upbringing, rather than inborn powers like Darkvision. For example, elven proficiency in longsword and longbow, dwarven mining abilities, halfling talent with slings, etc.  These often vary with which racial variant one is - i.e. tallfellow halfling vs stout halfling, wild elf vs grey elf, etc.  So there could be some required racial traits (like Darkvision) and some suggested (like mining talents).

This reduces having to have unique rules for the myriad of racial variants like grey/high/wood/wild/dark/moon/sun elves. It also leaves open options for someone to play a dwarf who didn't grow up underground, or a human raised in a hunting community where everyone used bows.

The solution is don't play with min-maxers.  If someone's going to give up the race they want for rp purposes for a stat bonus, which are pretty piddly anyway, that's not who I want to game with.  I like racial bonuses - it makes a lot of sense that the ogre (frex) is stronger than the hobbit - and it's never been a problem because the folks I've played with 'cause they care less about bonuses than other aspects of the game.

Quote from: Osman Gazi on September 26, 2022, 06:50:11 PM
Personally, I'd say the easiest way around this is simply having minimums and/or maximums for a race and/or class that the character wants to play--...

This should be the standard. Racial Ability score caps is the most straightforward way t handle things. But instead all people do is go round and round in circles about how to do what bonus where...

If you want to prevent it, just require players to pick their race before rolling attributes.

I agree with jhkim here. Racial stat modifiers often detract from the fun by encouraging some race/class combinations and discouraging others. If orcs get +2 Strength and -2 Intelligence, you're going to see a lot of orc barbarians and very few orc wizards. Of course, you can still be an orc wizard, but you are massively penalized for that choice and it seems odd to harshly condemn any thought of maximization when people who don't want to do it are penalized so very harshly.

Personally, I'm for point buys and non-random distribution. I don't even like rolling. Put your attribute points where you want them unless the GM has some kind of objection. If the GM thinks that your choice is too unrealistic or outlandish, like a halfling with an 18 Strength, then let the GM say no. Also, player character point distribution won't conflict with whatever NPC trends exist in the settings. The Gm can still make orc NPCs strong and dumb even if you have an orc wizard with an Int of 18 and Str of 8.

Quote from: ShieldWife on September 26, 2022, 09:07:29 PMIf orcs get +2 Strength and -2 Intelligence, you're going to see a lot of orc barbarians and very few orc wizards.

For me, that's a benefit: it completely makes sense that different sorts of folk are going to have different strengths and weaknesses, and that will be reflected in their cultures and the sorts of adventurers those peoples produce.

Giving races ability score modifiers, both positive and negative, alongside their various other biological qualia is part of what makes TTRPGs interesting. The sorts of worlds and cultures and such that develop from such things are interesting to look into. Sure, it can be done poorly, but so can everything.

QuoteThe Gm can still make orc NPCs strong and dumb even if you have an orc wizard with an Int of 18 and Str of 8.

Except that anyone who chooses to play a half-orc wizard with their -2 INT penalty is probably doing so because they're either looking for a mechanical challenge, or are interested in the inherent story there. Letting players get away with things that are not sensible in the physics of the setting contributes to setting incoherency.

I'm open to notions like backgrounds or classes affecting ability scores, if you wanted to go that route. But completely undoing the influence of an individual's ancestry feels a bit too far.

Going to racial modifiers was a mistake.  The AD&D approach of having minimum and maximum scores via random stat generation was the correct way.

If people don't want racial stat penalties, that's absolutely fine.  No problem.  But, there shouldn't be any racial stat bonuses either; if that's the case.  Just drop all racial modifiers across the board, at that gaming table.  Everyone is equal, racially.  Then it doesn't matter to the die rolls at all.  It will solely be for role play purposes, only.

Now, someone please go play a game.

I think there is a difference between a randomly generated character that might be disposable until the player grows attached to it over time, and a purpose build character designed around a mechanical or narrative feature for a game about how group of adventures accomplished the plot objectives.

The best way to handle different stat distribution for different biology is a per race conversion table. Thus a 10 STR is 10 for a human but 12 for an Orc or 7 for a Halfling, while an 18 might become a 16 for Human, 18 for Orc, and 12 for Halfling or something...