TheRPGSite

Greetings!

Yeah, the whole "+2 and +1" to whatever racial stats you want, rearrange as desired, is just total BS and I think when you draw back and really think about different, distinctive *races*--that doing such a policy is just fucking bland and weak. WTF? I can understand to a point saying, "All Gnomes have whatever stats, rearrange as you desire" can be attractive, but when you then apply the same precise attributes to every race, it just seems to make them all so bland and colourless to my way of thinking. Halflings are just as strong as Half Ogres? Half Ogres are just as swift and agile as Halflings? Same thing goes for Elves, and a dozen other races. The entire rationale and motivation behind such a rule as presented by WOTC is so much nonsense.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yup, why have race at all. Just ask them to go crazy and create a creature they want to roleplay. I am sure they will knock themselves out. The era of reinforced archtypes/tropes is gone.

I thought the same.

But then I realized that players had been doing this for decades and this new system solves the whole "elf for every stat bonus combo" problem.
But does not solve the "elf for every power combo" so YMMV really.

At the end if the day its just rules for doing what players have been doing for decades now.

Which seems part of WOTCs new marketing plan. To re-invent every wheel with a rules set and pretend its fresh and new and oooooh soooooo progressive and inclusiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive and absolutely totally not racist at all. Nope. Cant forget that.

My issue is the change totally removes any remaining verisimilitude in the game.  It's pants on head idiotic that 3 foot tall, 40 pound halflings and kobolds can be as strong as a human or half-orc.

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 05:01:25 AM
Greetings!

Yeah, the whole "+2 and +1" to whatever racial stats you want, rearrange as desired, is just total BS and I think when you draw back and really think about different, distinctive *races*--that doing such a policy is just fucking bland and weak. WTF? I can understand to a point saying, "All Gnomes have whatever stats, rearrange as you desire" can be attractive, but when you then apply the same precise attributes to every race, it just seems to make them all so bland and colourless to my way of thinking. Halflings are just as strong as Half Ogres? Half Ogres are just as swift and agile as Halflings? Same thing goes for Elves, and a dozen other races. The entire rationale and motivation behind such a rule as presented by WOTC is so much nonsense.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I don't often agree with SHARK, but when I do, it's usually about mechanics (even if those mechanics have been driven by politics). Here I agree that the "new" (5.5e?) version of races is crap.

Quote from: Palleon on May 27, 2021, 06:52:37 AM
My issue is the change totally removes any remaining verisimilitude in the game.  It's pants on head idiotic that 3 foot tall, 40 pound halflings and kobolds can be as strong as a human or half-orc.

Greetings!

Exactly, Palleon! ;D

Initially with 5E--or up until the recent supplements anyway--I thought that the racial attributes and profiles were going along ok, in keeping with the overall traditions from previous editions. Some stat bonuses, a few minuses here and there--I thought that approach was certainly appropriate in attempting to capture to a reasonable degree various physical, mental, and spiritual traits of various races. Humans, Half Elves, and perhaps a few others, I thought benefitted especially well from some nod towards free-form attribute arrangement, to better reflect their superior diversity, aptitude for learning, and great flexibility. This whole new approach for every race is just boggling. Now, Kobolds, Goblins, Halflings and Gnomes are just as physically capable and strong as a Human, Orc, Half Ogre, Minotaur, or Gnoll? The same dichotomy can be said for intellect, wisdom, charisma, everything. It makes an absolute mockery and travesty of any differences between any races.

Wiener Dogs are not the fucking same as Labrador Retrievers or Pit Bulls, even though they are the same *species* and can interbreed together.

Whoever at WOTC thought that this BS was a good approach to race design is a fucking moron.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

1E/2E had racial maximums on attributes.

3E had sizes, which reduced weapon effectiveness as well as your capabilities in a purely physical confrontation (grappling).

I know that 5E is trying to slim down the eighty bazillion rules issue, but the push to make everyone the same is just silly. Might as well call it Harrison Bergeron the RPG.

Dear heaven's this is dumb. I can get dropping stat penalties in some systems if they are to harsh but marking every race the same whats the point might as well drop it for a background system or a point system at that point.

Next up, removing attributes as "abelist" and making all the classes exactly equal by removing all mechanical differences.  The only description allowed for a character will be their gender.  The list of genders permitted will not include 'male' or 'female.'

Quote from: kosmos1214 on May 27, 2021, 08:23:30 AM
Dear heaven's this is dumb. I can get dropping stat penalties in some systems if they are to harsh but marking every race the same whats the point might as well drop it for a background system or a point system at that point.

The ability modifiers in 3E for half-orcs were flat broken, as they effectively lost 2 attribute points (+2 STR, -2 INT, -2 CHA) in exchange for being 'orc blooded' (counts as an orc for racial effects) and darkvision 60.

Hoo-fucking-ray.

Say what you will about Pathfinder 1E, but at least half-orcs weren't getting fucked in the ass statistically as compared to 3E. And while they got the generic '+2 to any one attribute', at least it came along with darkvision 60, +2 to intimidate checks, orc ferocity, and weapon proficiency with greataxes and falchions.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 27, 2021, 08:18:16 AM
Might as well call it Harrison Bergeron the RPG.

Seriously, this could be a great parody.

Quote from: areola on May 27, 2021, 05:15:05 AM
The era of reinforced archtypes/tropes is gone.

D&D is, classically, an exceptions based system.  You have different rules/mechanics for elves versus humans orcs, so that each race is a mechanical exception from another.  The exceptions are small, but they're there, and they help protect character niches.  You want a high stat/feature?  You -have- to play X race. 

Honestly though, the new change isn't an entirely bad one.  Players get to shuffle stat points around, so they can better play their idea of what their character is going to be like.  Don't want an 80 pound kobold with a STR of 18?  You're the DM?  Put your foot down.  You're a player?  Don't worry about what the other player is doing.  Want to play... an Orc wizard who's competent at magic -and- orcishly tough (if not particularly strong)?  The system will handle that.  All the books are doing now is giving groups a standardized way of making that happen.  Heck, a 20 STR kobold is already perfectly legal using the "old" rules of PHB and Volo's, without magical items and such (just plain old stat advancements as you level up), and people weren't this vocal about it.   

Aside from stat bonuses, different races still have their special features (e.g. immune to sleep magic, breath weapon attacks, etc.) that the new system doesn't really account for.  So you also still have some niche protection.   

Put another way, I'd rather play a system that encourages more options than fewer, and the changes aren't really that big of a deal.

(Edit: honestly, I'm finding 5ed would benefit from more options regarding player builds personally.  Maybe not as much as 3ed had, but more than this edition currently offers.)

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 27, 2021, 08:33:56 AM

Quote from: kosmos1214 on May 27, 2021, 08:23:30 AM
Dear heaven's this is dumb. I can get dropping stat penalties in some systems if they are to harsh but marking every race the same whats the point might as well drop it for a background system or a point system at that point.

The ability modifiers in 3E for half-orcs were flat broken, as they effectively lost 2 attribute points (+2 STR, -2 INT, -2 CHA) in exchange for being 'orc blooded' (counts as an orc for racial effects) and darkvision 60.

Hoo-fucking-ray.

Say what you will about Pathfinder 1E, but at least half-orcs weren't getting fucked in the ass statistically as compared to 3E. And while they got the generic '+2 to any one attribute', at least it came along with darkvision 60, +2 to intimidate checks, orc ferocity, and weapon proficiency with greataxes and falchions.

They actually explained in the 3e DMG in a section about adding new races that the designers felt Strength was more valuable than other stats and so, unless it was Dex, required a 2 for 1 tradeoff for Strength bonuses.

Worth remembering is that this decision was made back before there were many options to actually replace Strength with other stats for melee attacks and the only stat that added to weapon damage.

Not saying it was a great decision, but if you squint you can at least see the line of thinking.

My preference for dealing with size interacting with attributes is carry modifiers and weapon restrictions. A slower speed (shorter legs) and shorter jumping distance (in 3e all the small PC races had speeds of 20' which also imposed a -8 to all jump checks) are also elements that can ensure that Strength scores are relative to size.

Sure, a kobold can have a 20 Strength, but its small so instead of being able to carry 200 lb., they can only carry 100 lb. (square-cube law says smaller things are proportionately stronger relative to their mass) and simple leverage means it can't use a 3' blade without using both hands and can't use reach weapons at all. It also has to use its standard action for movement if it hopes to keep up with a human just using their move action and despite that 20 Strength its got a base -3 to its Jump check.

So a max strength kobold warrior is still weaker than a typical 12-13 Strength male laborer (10 is the average all humans, including women, sedentary males, the sickly and elderly) and it's biggest two-handed sword strikes are doing 1d8+5 and even its spear attack can't hit further than 5' away while a 20 Strength human using a longspear is doing 1d10+7 at 10' away (or 2d6+7 with a fullblade or greataxe at 5').

But allowing that 20 Strength means that there's a point to actually building a Kobold warrior because the melee hit and damage bonuses are still there for them.

By contrast, relying on no attribute bonus or even a penalty will probably skew things along the margins in more unrealistic ways. For example, even a -4 penalty to Strength would leave a Kobold who put their best score in Strength at a 14 and able to lift more than a typical human laborer, but it also utterly discourages any sort of kobold warrior build (unless finesse weapons are a thing) because that -4 is a big hit to their attack and damage rolls.

Raw size modifiers can more than sufficiently deal with differences in relative Strength way more realistically than just a -1 or even -4 to Strength could while still leaving concepts open and viable to fit certain campaigns (ex. a party of all halflings in a campaign where goblins, kobolds and similar small creatures are the common opponents would find strong -for halflings- warriors as viable as a halfling wizard, cleric or thief instead of them being unduly penalized in their core competency by only having a +2 while all the other classes have +5 to what they do best).

Basically, I think it's more than possible to build a system where the racial traits provide for any physiological differences without actual modifying the default 3-18 at all. So instead of Orcs get +2 Strength, their carry capacity is instead 50% greater. Dwarves don't get +2 Con, they get racial traits related to being exceptionally durable.

Quote from: Palleon on May 27, 2021, 06:52:37 AM
My issue is the change totally removes any remaining verisimilitude in the game.  It's pants on head idiotic that 3 foot tall, 40 pound halflings and kobolds can be as strong as a human or half-orc.

Except in 5e any PC could put points into whatever stat they wanted and get it to the cap of 20. Human, elf, halfling, etc. Its just that some races/variants have a slight edge in getting to the cap. So the whole SJW "waaaah! boo-hoo-hoo! Racial stats is wacist!" is the usual lies and smokescreen to leverage more control and push their agenda. It means nothing and does nothing because its meaningless in the end.

In BX no race got any stat bonuses. Same for OD&D. A halfling could be as strong as a human.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 27, 2021, 10:21:56 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 27, 2021, 08:33:56 AM

Quote from: kosmos1214 on May 27, 2021, 08:23:30 AM
Dear heaven's this is dumb. I can get dropping stat penalties in some systems if they are to harsh but marking every race the same whats the point might as well drop it for a background system or a point system at that point.

The ability modifiers in 3E for half-orcs were flat broken, as they effectively lost 2 attribute points (+2 STR, -2 INT, -2 CHA) in exchange for being 'orc blooded' (counts as an orc for racial effects) and darkvision 60.

Hoo-fucking-ray.

Say what you will about Pathfinder 1E, but at least half-orcs weren't getting fucked in the ass statistically as compared to 3E. And while they got the generic '+2 to any one attribute', at least it came along with darkvision 60, +2 to intimidate checks, orc ferocity, and weapon proficiency with greataxes and falchions.

They actually explained in the 3e DMG in a section about adding new races that the designers felt Strength was more valuable than other stats and so, unless it was Dex, required a 2 for 1 tradeoff for Strength bonuses.

Worth remembering is that this decision was made back before there were many options to actually replace Strength with other stats for melee attacks and the only stat that added to weapon damage.

Not saying it was a great decision, but if you squint you can at least see the line of thinking.

My preference for dealing with size interacting with attributes is carry modifiers and weapon restrictions. A slower speed (shorter legs) and shorter jumping distance (in 3e all the small PC races had speeds of 20' which also imposed a -8 to all jump checks) are also elements that can ensure that Strength scores are relative to size.

Sure, a kobold can have a 20 Strength, but its small so instead of being able to carry 200 lb., they can only carry 100 lb. (square-cube law says smaller things are proportionately stronger relative to their mass) and simple leverage means it can't use a 3' blade without using both hands and can't use reach weapons at all. It also has to use its standard action for movement if it hopes to keep up with a human just using their move action and despite that 20 Strength its got a base -3 to its Jump check.

So a max strength kobold warrior is still weaker than a typical 12-13 Strength male laborer (10 is the average all humans, including women, sedentary males, the sickly and elderly) and it's biggest two-handed sword strikes are doing 1d8+5 and even its spear attack can't hit further than 5' away while a 20 Strength human using a longspear is doing 1d10+7 at 10' away (or 2d6+7 with a fullblade or greataxe at 5').

But allowing that 20 Strength means that there's a point to actually building a Kobold warrior because the melee hit and damage bonuses are still there for them.

By contrast, relying on no attribute bonus or even a penalty will probably skew things along the margins in more unrealistic ways. For example, even a -4 penalty to Strength would leave a Kobold who put their best score in Strength at a 14 and able to lift more than a typical human laborer, but it also utterly discourages any sort of kobold warrior build (unless finesse weapons are a thing) because that -4 is a big hit to their attack and damage rolls.

Raw size modifiers can more than sufficiently deal with differences in relative Strength way more realistically than just a -1 or even -4 to Strength could while still leaving concepts open and viable to fit certain campaigns (ex. a party of all halflings in a campaign where goblins, kobolds and similar small creatures are the common opponents would find strong -for halflings- warriors as viable as a halfling wizard, cleric or thief instead of them being unduly penalized in their core competency by only having a +2 while all the other classes have +5 to what they do best).

Basically, I think it's more than possible to build a system where the racial traits provide for any physiological differences without actual modifying the default 3-18 at all. So instead of Orcs get +2 Strength, their carry capacity is instead 50% greater. Dwarves don't get +2 Con, they get racial traits related to being exceptionally durable.

Yeah, I heard that. Except that it betrays some very, very stupid assumptions and willful blindness about how the attributes functioned in 3E (this isn't directed at you personally, but at the devs who spouted that nonsense).

Martial classes had already been slapped with the nerf bat by stripping them of the ability to make multiple attacks except as part of a full attack (which obviates any movement ability). Mobility? Sorry, you have to stand still if you want to swing more than once. This is, I think, one more aspect of the design.

I like the idea of non-attribute buffs -- again, it's harsh enough that half-orcs effectively lose two attribute points from character creation, but they get practically nothing in terms of such abilities. I play in a lot of games where point buy is a thing, and as a result attribute points are fairly fungible -- so half-orcs lose out, bigly.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 27, 2021, 11:07:10 AM
I like the idea of non-attribute buffs -- again, it's harsh enough that half-orcs effectively lose two attribute points from character creation, but they get practically nothing in terms of such abilities. I play in a lot of games where point buy is a thing, and as a result attribute points are fairly fungible -- so half-orcs lose out, bigly.

Well, and the point of non-attribute racial buffs is that you don't have racial stat bumps or penalties at all, just the racial buffs. So an 18 is the best any creature can be and a 3 is the worst... its the half-orc's +50% carry capacity that makes a higher strength score more useful to them, but its also useful to a "puny" half-orc wizard who's Str 8 instead of starting to be slowed down by gear at a mere 40 lb. instead can lug 60 lb. without issue... which if armor doesn't actually restrict casting in the system might be the difference between a wizard being able to wear a chain hauberk instead of just a gambeson.

The main idea would be that racial buffs be fairly universally useful. If all a race offers is a stat boost then the only time that race is a consideration is if you're building a PC whose class needs that stat. But if the racial buffs are less directly applicable to class performance, but more parallel to them, then race matters in its own way while not making it something that caters only to specific classes.

Ex. the half-orc carry capacity above is good for every class, especially in an OSR treasure = XP game where that translates to potentially +50% more xp that the half-orc is able to haul out of the dungeon. The high strength half-orc fighter might carry out more than the wizard, but its a buff even for the wizard.

Tired of WOTC turning their settings into nice safe inoffensive grey paste? Stop bitching about it and fucking switch to pathfinder!


(https://media.tenor.com/images/917f26746c6d0fb761751d1c598cca8b/tenor.png)

Quote from: The Thing on May 27, 2021, 12:10:40 PM
Tired of WOTC turning their settings into nice safe inoffensive grey paste? Stop bitching about it and fucking switch to pathfinder!

Pathfinder/Paizo is even more Woke than WotC and their system really highlights that the only reason for their initial successes was standing on the shoulders of the OGL and WotCs mismanagement of D&D at the time.

I already have my own system focused around having fun at the table that handles all my fantasy needs better than Paizo or WotC ever could.

What Chrisc said and it's become even worse with the official FB group now requiring content warnings because some players might get triggered. Hell the mods came off looking like idiots because someone on the FB group quoted the core. Then some triggered child in an adult body reported it. With the mods siding with the second.

So whatever drugs you are on get off them get help because Pathfinder is as bad if not worse than Wotc.

Quote from: sureshot on May 27, 2021, 12:30:31 PM
What Chrisc said and it's become even worse with the official FB group now requiring content warnings because some players might get triggered. Hell the mods came off looking like idiots because someone on the FB group quoted the core. Then some triggered child in an adult body reported it. With the mods siding with the second.

So whatever drugs you are on get off them get help because Pathfinder is as bad if not worse than Wotc.

Hey i only played starfinder for a while. I'm not into D&D settings period.

A damn good friend of mine hated 4e and i told him about pathfinder. he switched to that and was pretty damn happy with it.

Quote from: The Thing on May 27, 2021, 12:32:15 PM
A damn good friend of mine hated 4e and i told him about pathfinder. he switched to that and was pretty damn happy with it.

Timing matters.

Back in 2008-10 at the height of WotC's mismanagement was before the modern wave of Woke exploded and Pathfinder was billing itself as the direct continuation of the popular 3.5e and kept more of a lid on their leftist drivel.

The explosion of Woke didn't really hit critical mass until the Orange Man drove them insane (real life anecdote... I was part of two gaming groups where some of the players were left-leaning and both groups disintegrated shortly after the 2016 elections as the lefties couldn't even stand to be at the same table as someone who didn't express utter hatred for Trump with every other sentence... they literally went insane).

That's probably why 5e's core books, despite a paragraph or two about "sensitivity" were still reasonably normal. It was only after the psychic shockwave that half the country wasn't in lockstep with their idiocy that they started shoving their wokeness into everything entertainment related, including RPGs.

TL;DR Paizo/WotC 2010 are not Paizo/WotC 2020.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 27, 2021, 11:07:10 AM
I like the idea of non-attribute buffs -- again, it's harsh enough that half-orcs effectively lose two attribute points from character creation, but they get practically nothing in terms of such abilities. I play in a lot of games where point buy is a thing, and as a result attribute points are fairly fungible -- so half-orcs lose out, bigly.

I agree. This is exactly why Savage Worlds abandoned attribute modifiers, and why they are largely meaningless now in later GURPS and Hero editions. Because if attributes are fungible anyway, then the only thing the mods do is introduce min/max possibilities.

Unpacking that a little more...

I think in D&D-like games, attribute mods only work as intended if one is using roll-in-order. If you choose race and then do roll-in-order of attributes, then a +2 Dexterity and -2 Wisdom means that player characters of that race will have on average Dexterity 2 higher than normal, and Wisdom 2 lower than normal. But even so, there will be 20% of characters with higher Wisdom than Dexterity, in reverse of the average.

However, if you use roll-six-times-and-arrange, then the problem is that +2 in your high prime attribute is worth a lot more than -2 in your dump stat. So any player who takes this race will be more effective if they choose a Dex-favoring class, put a high number into Dex and a low number into Wisdom. So the only way they will do otherwise isn't random - it's because the player deliberately takes a less effective character to play against type.

Personally, I dislike introducing this sort of deliberate min-maxing within character creation. Some people see it as a feature that some PCs are more powerful than others, to encourage system mastery. But I think character creation is the wrong time for it. Player characters should start on an equal footing, and tactical decision making should be important during play, not before.

Quote from: Omega on May 27, 2021, 10:27:14 AM

Quote from: Palleon on May 27, 2021, 06:52:37 AM
My issue is the change totally removes any remaining verisimilitude in the game.  It's pants on head idiotic that 3 foot tall, 40 pound halflings and kobolds can be as strong as a human or half-orc.

Except in 5e any PC could put points into whatever stat they wanted and get it to the cap of 20. Human, elf, halfling, etc. Its just that some races/variants have a slight edge in getting to the cap. So the whole SJW "waaaah! boo-hoo-hoo! Racial stats is wacist!" is the usual lies and smokescreen to leverage more control and push their agenda. It means nothing and does nothing because its meaningless in the end.

In BX no race got any stat bonuses. Same for OD&D. A halfling could be as strong as a human.

With D&D 5E; they are going all the way around the world, to get back to OD&D? 

Quote from: Jam The MF on May 27, 2021, 02:07:36 PM
With D&D 5E; they are going all the way around the world, to get back to OD&D?

That would mean we'd at least get an attempt at interesting high-level gaming.

Quote from: Omega on May 27, 2021, 10:27:14 AM
In BX no race got any stat bonuses. Same for OD&D. A halfling could be as strong as a human.

Which is also dumb, but in practice I don't recall it ever being an issue. 

Quote from: areola on May 27, 2021, 05:15:05 AM
Yup, why have race at all. Just ask them to go crazy and create a creature they want to roleplay. I am sure they will knock themselves out. The era of reinforced archtypes/tropes is gone.

thats actually one of the options lol

Quote from: The Thing on May 27, 2021, 12:10:40 PM
Tired of WOTC turning their settings into nice safe inoffensive grey paste? Stop bitching about it and fucking switch to pathfinder!

You Misspelled "Swords and Wizardry."

Paizo were absurdly lucky.  Pathfinder's success was lightning in a bottle. Every attempt to recapture it has increasingly lead to them fall flat on their faces.   Paizo's in house design team suck at their jobs.  Their approach to "fixing" 3.5's numerous problems was to declare those problems features and double down on them.

I'm sad it took me this long to discover the OSR.

Quote from: Hakdov on May 27, 2021, 02:37:32 PM

Quote from: Omega on May 27, 2021, 10:27:14 AM
In BX no race got any stat bonuses. Same for OD&D. A halfling could be as strong as a human.

Which is also dumb, but in practice I don't recall it ever being an issue.

I agree that it wasn't an issue. That's because contrary to the OP, the thing that made races interesting and distinctive has *never* been the stat bonuses.

The stat bonuses are a minor adjustment that have never been a big deal, and haven't worked as intended ever since roll-in-order stopped being the default.

Quote from: Torque2100 on May 27, 2021, 03:15:16 PM

Quote from: The Thing on May 27, 2021, 12:10:40 PM
Tired of WOTC turning their settings into nice safe inoffensive grey paste? Stop bitching about it and fucking switch to pathfinder!

You Misspelled "Swords and Wizardry."

Paizo were absurdly lucky.  Pathfinder's success was lightning in a bottle. Every attempt to recapture it has increasingly lead to them fall flat on their faces.   Paizo's in house design team suck at their jobs.  Their approach to "fixing" 3.5's numerous problems was to declare those problems features and double down on them.

I'm sad it took me this long to discover the OSR.

I dunno. PF2 is weird but it's not bad. I'm still examining the system.

Also, any game where you can tell off a succubus after a failed seduction attempt, and cause damage to her, is pretty funny.

Quote from: jhkim on May 27, 2021, 03:21:11 PM

Quote from: Hakdov on May 27, 2021, 02:37:32 PM

Quote from: Omega on May 27, 2021, 10:27:14 AM
In BX no race got any stat bonuses. Same for OD&D. A halfling could be as strong as a human.

Which is also dumb, but in practice I don't recall it ever being an issue.

I agree that it wasn't an issue. That's because contrary to the OP, the thing that made races interesting and distinctive has *never* been the stat bonuses.

The stat bonuses are a minor adjustment that have never been a big deal, and haven't worked as intended ever since roll-in-order stopped being the default.

Greetings!

Well, as usual, I disagree with you, Jhkim. Stat attributes may certainly not have been the *only* thing that made races interesting--but I definitely think that having different, distinctive racial stats provides a very important framework. Flowing on from that, it also provides potential insights into personality, class, the entire society. Yeah, lots of things. How individual NPC's might view the world and experience the world in significantly different ways, all ultimately derived and inspired from a fixed racial stat framework.

So, I think it is very important and meaningful, and having *NO* racial stat framework or profile--orallowing every race the same stats--is terribly boring, and a terrible design choice.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Omega on May 27, 2021, 10:27:14 AM
In BX no race got any stat bonuses. Same for OD&D. A halfling could be as strong as a human.

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 03:32:19 PM
So, I think it is very important and meaningful, and having *NO* racial stat framework or profile--orallowing every race the same stats--is terribly boring, and a terrible design choice.

To be clear -- you think that OD&D and BX are terribly boring and terrible design choices? (Plus Savage Worlds and many other non-D&D-based system?)

It's obvious that D&D as a game system is going to become more and more rules-lite, abstract, and ad-hoc.
At the same time the implicit & published settings will also lose detail. Setting races & cultures will lose definable characteristics. Rather than detailed ethnography with population breakdowns, figures on trade, customs, religious & philosophical values, setting material will emphasize broad strokes generalization and encourage spontaneously creating these elements as needed.

Quote from: jhkim on May 27, 2021, 03:47:59 PM

Quote from: Omega on May 27, 2021, 10:27:14 AM
In BX no race got any stat bonuses. Same for OD&D. A halfling could be as strong as a human.

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 03:32:19 PM
So, I think it is very important and meaningful, and having *NO* racial stat framework or profile--orallowing every race the same stats--is terribly boring, and a terrible design choice.

To be clear -- you think that OD&D and BX are terribly boring and terrible design choices? (Plus Savage Worlds and many other non-D&D-based system?)

Greetings!

YES, they are absolutely boring and terrible design choices. The idea that Halflings can be just as strong as humans or whatever is fucking retarded.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 04:08:34 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 27, 2021, 03:47:59 PM
To be clear -- you think that OD&D and BX are terribly boring and terrible design choices? (Plus Savage Worlds and many other non-D&D-based system?)

YES, they are absolutely boring and terrible design choices. The idea that Halflings can be just as strong as humans or whatever is fucking retarded.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

But why is it boring? I can understand a realism argument - i.e. realistically, halflings should be much much weaker than humans, and completely unable to hold their own in a fight. They shouldn't even be able to use most weapons. The problem with realistic attribute caps is that most of the game isn't realistic anyway. So where does one draw the line about how realistic is unrealistic? Human characters in D&D are generally capable of a lot of what would be called superhuman feats - like fighting dragons, falling a hundred feet and walking away, and so forth.

So while I get unrealistic, I don't see about boring. I never played OD&D, but I started D&D on the Basic Set, and I found it really fun - including playing other races. The Basic Set used stuff *other* than stats to make the races distinctive and interesting, which I think is much more successful in making them interesting.

Quote from: jhkim on May 27, 2021, 07:39:39 PM

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 04:08:34 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 27, 2021, 03:47:59 PM
To be clear -- you think that OD&D and BX are terribly boring and terrible design choices? (Plus Savage Worlds and many other non-D&D-based system?)

YES, they are absolutely boring and terrible design choices. The idea that Halflings can be just as strong as humans or whatever is fucking retarded.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

But why is it boring? I can understand a realism argument - i.e. realistically, halflings should be much much weaker than humans, and completely unable to hold their own in a fight. They shouldn't even be able to use most weapons. The problem with realistic attribute caps is that most of the game isn't realistic anyway. So where does one draw the line about how realistic is unrealistic? Human characters in D&D are generally capable of a lot of what would be called superhuman feats - like fighting dragons, falling a hundred feet and walking away, and so forth.

So while I get unrealistic, I don't see about boring. I never played OD&D, but I started D&D on the Basic Set, and I found it really fun - including playing other races. The Basic Set used stuff *other* than stats to make the races distinctive and interesting, which I think is much more successful in making them interesting.

You don't see the lack of variety caused by everything having the same (options for) racial modifiers as being even a little more boring?

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 27, 2021, 07:43:36 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 27, 2021, 07:39:39 PM
But why is it boring? I can understand a realism argument - i.e. realistically, halflings should be much much weaker than humans, and completely unable to hold their own in a fight. They shouldn't even be able to use most weapons. The problem with realistic attribute caps is that most of the game isn't realistic anyway. So where does one draw the line about how realistic is unrealistic? Human characters in D&D are generally capable of a lot of what would be called superhuman feats - like fighting dragons, falling a hundred feet and walking away, and so forth.

So while I get unrealistic, I don't see about boring. I never played OD&D, but I started D&D on the Basic Set, and I found it really fun - including playing other races. The Basic Set used stuff *other* than stats to make the races distinctive and interesting, which I think is much more successful in making them interesting.

You don't see the lack of variety caused by everything having the same (options for) racial modifiers as being even a little more boring?

You're talking as if a bunch of different numbers on a page is supposedly more variety, but that's not something I care about.

What I care about is what actually makes a difference in actual play at the table, not pages in the book. i.e. Is there a wide variety of PCs, for example? What I see in practice is that adding in the stat optimization *reduces* the variety of PCs, at least when using roll-and-arrange.

In both roll-in-order and in point-buy, I'll still get a lot of standard archetypes like the halfling rogue - because people like those. But I'll also get more characters against type, like a halfling who rolls a low Dex who ends up a cleric, or a deliberate mounted halfling fighter modeled on Bullroarer Took.

I didn't like it at first, but then I realized that A) Any DM can do whatever they want and have Ability maximums, and B) It offers more freedom to play the character you want to play without worrying about the optimal race-class combo.

It is only a problem if you play AL and/or get hung up on such things. It doesn't take anything away but adds more options.

Sure, it is ultimately virtue signaling/pandering on WotC's part, but it doesn't have to be the end of the world and DMs are still allowed to do what they want, unless you're playing with uber-entitled children, and then I'd ask, why play with such folk?

Do you get to pick racial special abilities? Can your human get darkvision?

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on May 27, 2021, 08:26:37 PM
Do you get to pick racial special abilities? Can your human get darkvision?

Your PC can have darkvision. You can call them human if you want to.

Well, I don't really like a total lack of racial attribute bonuses or penalties, though I can see the reasoning behind those changes. Sure, it may be thematic for orcs (being stronger but less intelligent than humans on average) to have +2 Strength and -2 Intelligence, but is the game better for there being no orc PC wizards and most of them as fighters or barbarians? Realistically, a halfling should receive far more than a -2 to Strength, considering the fact that a 6' tall 200 lbs human would scale down to a 3' tall 25 lbs halfling, they should barely be able to fight at all against humans in normal combat. But, as a game, it might be fun to play a halfling fighter or an orc wizard.

It reminds me of my biggest issue with gender based modifiers. Not that they are necessarily unrealistic, but if men get +2 Strength and women get +2 Charisma, then all of the PC fighters will be men and all of the sorcerers (or sorceresses I should say) will be women.

And, if someone wants a weak halfling or a dumb orc, they can always use Strength or Intelligence respectively as dump stats, assuming that the players have control over their characters' attributes, which is standard in most games now. In fact, bonuses and penalties to attributes basically become obsolete once you go to a point distribution system for attributes instead of rolling. If you want a stereotypical orc or halfling, you can assign your points to be that way, but should it be impossible (or just significantly punished) to make a non-stereotypical character? Is it bad wrong fun to have an orc wizard with an intelligence of 18 or a halfling barbarian with a Strength of 18? I don't know, it's all subjective. A lack of racial attribute bonuses or penalties does seem to give players (and potentially DMs) more options regarding character design.

I have sometimes thought that it would be neat to give each race different bonuses or penalties based on class. Kind of like how Pathfinder just favored class leveling based on race. An orc wizard might get a certain orcy bonus to wizard stuff while a halfling fighter might get a special bonus based on being a halfling. Every race and class could have that combination - so as to combine flavor and versatility.

Of course, the ultimate version of that would just be to allow every ability through point but character design, but there are countless other systems that allow for that and D&D is distinguished by having relatively rigid classes and even races.

Quote from: Palleon on May 27, 2021, 06:52:37 AM
My issue is the change totally removes any remaining verisimilitude in the game.  It's pants on head idiotic that 3 foot tall, 40 pound halflings and kobolds can be as strong as a human or half-orc.

Let alone females.  ;-)

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 05:01:25 AMWOTC Making Racial Stat Attributes All the Same is Weak and Effing Bland!

It's 5e. Of course it's weak and bland.

Play 1st edition. With most rpgs, any editions after the first ten years are just a cash grab or fan service.

The whole point of stat mods, racial min/max, and level limits was to enforce character paradigms. This is extremely evident in AD&D; did anyone ever just play a regular fighter elf instead of a fighter/magic-user? But it also encourages people to play humans, hence the whole "humanocentric" game Gygax was fond of. That's a BETTER game, at least for D&D, than a bunch of fucking demonoid halfdragons running around, turning the game from a pseudo-medieval environment to what is essentially a fucking carnival atmosphere. And it keeps getting worse. People in this thread are acting like there was never a transition from OD&D to AD&D, or that no one ever in the history of time gave stat mods to any race before AD&D. Ever look at Runequest? Traveller? The notion of stat generation dependent upon race is pretty much ingrained in the DNA of RPGs. For good reason: it makes race choice more meaningful mechanically.

If you make race have no mechanical difference, then it's just "humans in funny suits" which undermines he whole point of role playing a different race in the first place. Getting rid of stat mods is just another step in making the game bland and boring.

Quote from: Brad on May 27, 2021, 09:34:09 PM
The whole point of stat mods, racial min/max, and level limits was to enforce character paradigms. This is extremely evident in AD&D; did anyone ever just play a regular fighter elf instead of a fighter/magic-user? But it also encourages people to play humans, hence the whole "humanocentric" game Gygax was fond of. That's a BETTER game, at least for D&D, than a bunch of fucking demonoid halfdragons running around, turning the game from a pseudo-medieval environment to what is essentially a fucking carnival atmosphere. And it keeps getting worse. People in this thread are acting like there was never a transition from OD&D to AD&D, or that no one ever in the history of time gave stat mods to any race before AD&D. Ever look at Runequest? Traveller? The notion of stat generation dependent upon race is pretty much ingrained in the DNA of RPGs. For good reason: it makes race choice more meaningful mechanically.

While it's true that stat mods were common in older games, that doesn't mean that they're always a good idea and any game without them (like OD&D, BX, Savage Worlds, and others) is inferior.

Runequest and Traveller use roll-in-order for stats, which doesn't have the min/max problem that I discussed.

But even given that, it's also true that stats aren't the main thing making non-humans interesting. For example, in Traveller, Hivers have identical physical and mental stats to Humans. But that doesn't make them boring and bland - because stat mods are only one small piece about what makes non-human characters interesting.

Quote from: Jam The MF on May 27, 2021, 02:07:36 PM

Quote from: Omega on May 27, 2021, 10:27:14 AM

Quote from: Palleon on May 27, 2021, 06:52:37 AM
My issue is the change totally removes any remaining verisimilitude in the game.  It's pants on head idiotic that 3 foot tall, 40 pound halflings and kobolds can be as strong as a human or half-orc.

Except in 5e any PC could put points into whatever stat they wanted and get it to the cap of 20. Human, elf, halfling, etc. Its just that some races/variants have a slight edge in getting to the cap. So the whole SJW "waaaah! boo-hoo-hoo! Racial stats is wacist!" is the usual lies and smokescreen to leverage more control and push their agenda. It means nothing and does nothing because its meaningless in the end.

In BX no race got any stat bonuses. Same for OD&D. A halfling could be as strong as a human.

With D&D 5E; they are going all the way around the world, to get back to OD&D?

Its WOTC. They will go all the way around then keep going till they stop at 4e again and then try and improve on its "success" because they know they have a dedicated cult still clinging tenaciously to the gaming perfection that is 4e.

Most games were " humanocentric" because of levels limits. It was either taking vanilla, boring,  bland as fuck human. Or get screwed by Demi-human level limits. Why take a race only to get stuck only being allowed five levels in a class. We took humans only and only because of no level limits. While taking other races only if the DM removed level limits.

It does not make for a better game of D&D, it pigeonholes players in taking one race. Yes too many races especially exotic races can overshadow the core races. Yet too many DMs did nothing to make humans interesting. Same thing with ezy too many RPGs companies in the earlier years. Breed like rabbits and high levels of ambition.

As for the OP not impressed or interested with how Wotc is making the rpg even more bland and boring. Sad because 5E has some concepts I like yet more and more not something so want to run and play.

Maybe when WotC releases 6e, they can just slap the yellow Hero System buddy on the race chapter (or species or however they decide to water it down) and just call it 'them'.  Company could save a bunch on unnecessary art in the process.

It actually might be an interesting technique getting rid of the whole idea: players will develop their characters' personalities and particular characteristics through play, rather than auto-grabbing a tiefling or some other type that makes them feel oh so special and unique, coupled with a pointless backstory.

Let's be real, most players pick the race for window dressing or to min/max, or both.
Faceless, drone, murder hobos:  Any encountered NPC would have to roll for Sanity loss at that point.

Oh and darkvision just needs to die a horrible death.

<edit>

I should caveat this as WotC will never do this as introducing a bunch of new, pointless races is one of the biggest draws of these expansion books I would wager.

Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies on May 27, 2021, 10:33:17 PM
the race chapter (or species or however they decide to water it down) and just call it 'them'.  Company could save a bunch on unnecessary art in the process.

They should call them skins (and yes, you can re-skin just about anything with the newest 5e race rules) since your choice is largely just a cosmetic effect, but I disagree strongly on saving on art. Art is the one thing that now differentiates the skins.

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 27, 2021, 10:49:26 PM

Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies on May 27, 2021, 10:33:17 PM
the race chapter (or species or however they decide to water it down) and just call it 'them'.  Company could save a bunch on unnecessary art in the process.

They should call them skins (and yes, you can re-skin just about anything with the newest 5e race rules) since your choice is largely just a cosmetic effect, but I disagree strongly on saving on art. Art is the one thing that now differentiates the skins.

If races are skins, does that mean classes are shirts?

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 27, 2021, 10:49:26 PM
They should call them skins (and yes, you can re-skin just about anything with the newest 5e race rules) since your choice is largely just a cosmetic effect, but I disagree strongly on saving on art. Art is the one thing that now differentiates the skins.

Not a bad idea.  WotC could take some ideas from SOTDL where humans are all sorts of crazy colours.  Go fully off the rails and have some human that looks like a barber shop pole kicking ass: I'd actually consider playing that.

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 04:08:34 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 27, 2021, 03:47:59 PM

Quote from: Omega on May 27, 2021, 10:27:14 AM
In BX no race got any stat bonuses. Same for OD&D. A halfling could be as strong as a human.

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 03:32:19 PM
So, I think it is very important and meaningful, and having *NO* racial stat framework or profile--orallowing every race the same stats--is terribly boring, and a terrible design choice.

To be clear -- you think that OD&D and BX are terribly boring and terrible design choices? (Plus Savage Worlds and many other non-D&D-based system?)

Greetings!

YES, they are absolutely boring and terrible design choices. The idea that Halflings can be just as strong as humans or whatever is fucking retarded.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

In a game where people can fall from near 100% lethal heights and walk away? A game where big lizards massing several tons can fly? A game where dozens of impossible things happen, have happened, will happen?

But +2 STR +1 CON = EXCITEMENT!!!! REALISM!!! and taking that away makes it all ever so boring?

Really?

Then allow us to club you over the head like a baby seal with a few more points.
In AD&D any race could exceed their stat limits via training books and via spells like Wish. Or to a lesser degree via items like ye ol Gauntlets of Ogre power. And that is not even getting into magic pools which could alter your stats as well. These things tended to be few and far between. But it was more than possible even in AD&D for any race to bump up their stats. If I recall right there was no hard cap on just how high you could take a stat till I think 2e. 25? The AD&D DMG though has it that using wishes to get a stat past 16 edges it up 1/10 per wish. But otherwise no limit.

And even without that any given halfling adventurer of the fighter types could and probably would have for example a STR score well above the average NPC humans 8-11.

Instead of going "Boo-hoo-hoo! Dat mean ol Halfling with 20STR is unwealistic!!!!" ask... "How the hell did that halfling get so strong???"
Magic? Items? Training? Bloodline? Something else? Is it really a halfling even?

D&D has always been a game where the sky is very not the limit.

My grouse with these changes to 5e is that they are not done with any good intention. And that skews everything off kilter. So instead of going "oh neet that harkens back to older editions!" instead I go "oh fuck another woke agenda poisoning the game."

Quote from: Omega on May 27, 2021, 11:10:50 PM

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 04:08:34 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 27, 2021, 03:47:59 PM

Quote from: Omega on May 27, 2021, 10:27:14 AM
In BX no race got any stat bonuses. Same for OD&D. A halfling could be as strong as a human.

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 03:32:19 PM
So, I think it is very important and meaningful, and having *NO* racial stat framework or profile--orallowing every race the same stats--is terribly boring, and a terrible design choice.

To be clear -- you think that OD&D and BX are terribly boring and terrible design choices? (Plus Savage Worlds and many other non-D&D-based system?)

Greetings!

YES, they are absolutely boring and terrible design choices. The idea that Halflings can be just as strong as humans or whatever is fucking retarded.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

In a game where people can fall from near 100% lethal heights and walk away? A game where big lizards massing several tons can fly? A game where dozens of impossible things happen, have happened, will happen?

But +2 STR +1 CON = EXCITEMENT!!!! REALISM!!! and taking that away makes it all ever so boring?

Really?

Then allow us to club you over the head like a baby seal with a few more points.
In AD&D any race could exceed their stat limits via training books and via spells like Wish. Or to a lesser degree via items like ye ol Gauntlets of Ogre power. And that is not even getting into magic pools which could alter your stats as well. These things tended to be few and far between. But it was more than possible even in AD&D for any race to bump up their stats. If I recall right there was no hard cap on just how high you could take a stat till I think 2e. 25? The AD&D DMG though has it that using wishes to get a stat past 16 edges it up 1/10 per wish. But otherwise no limit.

And even without that any given halfling adventurer of the fighter types could and probably would have for example a STR score well above the average NPC humans 8-11.

Instead of going "Boo-hoo-hoo! Dat mean ol Halfling with 20STR is unwealistic!!!!" ask... "How the hell did that halfling get so strong???"
Magic? Items? Training? Bloodline? Something else? Is it really a halfling even?

D&D has always been a game where the sky is very not the limit.

My grouse with these changes to 5e is that they are not done with any good intention. And that skews everything off kilter. So instead of going "oh neet that harkens back to older editions!" instead I go "oh fuck another woke agenda poisoning the game."

The old "some things about the game are not realistic, so it doesn't matter if anything about the game is realistic" argument.  And it's still a dumb argument.  Making the game as close to realistic as possible while still incorporating the desired fantastic elements allows players to use their real-world intuition to make in-game decisions and increases both verisimilitude and immersion.  I'm fine with having a 30 pound halfling just as strong as the 500 pound half-ogre, if having such things is one of the premises of the game.  If it isn't I would like the half ogre to be vastly stronger, because that's what I would expect in real life.

And I'll join the chorus.  These changes are stupid.  There's no point in playing different character races if they're all mechanically the same.  It's simpler to just make them different human cultures.

Quote from: Omega on May 27, 2021, 11:10:50 PM
In AD&D any race could exceed their stat limits via training books and via spells like Wish. Or to a lesser degree via items like ye ol Gauntlets of Ogre power. And that is not even getting into magic pools which could alter your stats as well. These things tended to be few and far between. But it was more than possible even in AD&D for any race to bump up their stats. If I recall right there was no hard cap on just how high you could take a stat till I think 2e. 25? The AD&D DMG though has it that using wishes to get a stat past 16 edges it up 1/10 per wish. But otherwise no limit.

Ability scores always capped out at 25 and mortals generally didn't get over 19 in 1E.

There's a huge difference between having the ability granted by magic items and baked into the character itself.  If the DM isn't Monty Haul, there's absolutely no assurances that the 1E halfling male with a natural 17 strength is going to get any higher.  The 30 years of unnatural aging for the caster of the ten Wish spells tends to make that a poor choice when the reagents to potions of longevity are hard to come by.

This is one of the biggest differences in modern versus old-school.  Yes, old-school could be epic high fantasy when awarded by the DM via items.  On the other hand it could be quite low magic and more mundane without messing with rules.

Quote from: Palleon on May 28, 2021, 12:55:30 AM
There's a huge difference between having the ability granted by magic items and baked into the character itself.  If the DM isn't Monty Haul, there's absolutely no assurances that the 1E halfling male with a natural 17 strength is going to get any higher.  The 30 years of unnatural aging for the caster of the ten Wish spells tends to make that a poor choice when the reagents to potions of longevity are hard to come by.

This is one of the biggest differences in modern versus old-school.  Yes, old-school could be epic high fantasy when awarded by the DM via items.  On the other hand it could be quite low magic and more mundane without messing with rules.

Wait. Are you saying the OD&D and BX aren't old-school? Only AD&D1 is because of stat modifiers and limits?

On the broader point, if you don't give out any magic items in AD&D1, then yes fighters and thieves are less superhuman at high level in 1E -- but it's still true that spellcasters and monks become very epic high fantasy. And the official 1e modules were full of magic items along with coded treasure types from the Monster Manual, so that was the expected default.

Quote from: jhkim on May 28, 2021, 03:31:10 AM

Quote from: Palleon on May 28, 2021, 12:55:30 AM
There's a huge difference between having the ability granted by magic items and baked into the character itself.  If the DM isn't Monty Haul, there's absolutely no assurances that the 1E halfling male with a natural 17 strength is going to get any higher.  The 30 years of unnatural aging for the caster of the ten Wish spells tends to make that a poor choice when the reagents to potions of longevity are hard to come by.

This is one of the biggest differences in modern versus old-school.  Yes, old-school could be epic high fantasy when awarded by the DM via items.  On the other hand it could be quite low magic and more mundane without messing with rules.

Wait. Are you saying the OD&D and BX aren't old-school? Only AD&D1 is because of stat modifiers and limits?

On the broader point, if you don't give out any magic items in AD&D1, then yes fighters and thieves are less superhuman at high level in 1E -- but it's still true that spellcasters and monks become very epic high fantasy. And the official 1e modules were full of magic items along with coded treasure types from the Monster Manual, so that was the expected default.

Greetings!

Of course OD&D and such are Old School. That isn't the point, though. As many have expressed--as well as myself--in the new woke fucking 5E--or OD&D or other old school games (for different reasons or motivations)--having all the different races have *NO MECHANICAL, ATTRIBUTE* differences, or in Woke 5E's case, now all of the races are being pushed to all have *THE SAME STAT ATTRIBUTES*--is bland, stupid, and boring. I think Brad said it, it makes all the different races merely humans with different heads on. Attribute stat profiles may be "minor" to Jhkim, but they are very significant and meaningful to other people.

As I mentioned previously, having various attribute bonuses and/or penalties on the surface seems to be only mechanical in nature, but at least to myself, and likely many others, such attributes are not merely mechanical, but feed into how an entire society in the aggregate may behave, operate, and value, as well as for individual player characters and NPC's alike.

Making all the races the same, regardless of the performance of any one individual, makes conceptualizing and viewing the race as a whole to be ridiculous and stupid, as well as boring, like a bowl of luke-warm mush.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

QuoteYeah, lots of things. How individual NPC's might view the world and experience the world in significantly different ways, all ultimately derived and inspired from a fixed racial stat framework.

I really doubt it at least among standard +2/-2 races with randomized rolls - which is like standard for non-human.
This is not nearly enough to say NPCs will view world in significantly different ways. In fact at all.
You're race having +2/-2 to Int means one will have more top-notch wizards, but it won't take wizards from later.

So it's basically useless in this distinction unless you follow kinda fake stereotypisation based on just +2 / -2 to some attribute.

You need more, like strong enforced psychology traits, weird physiologies, or just treating the same attributes at members of different races differently like Chris suggested.
I seem to remember game when everything from giant to halfling used the same attributes but very different tables for Skill Challenge Levels.

QuoteYES, they are absolutely boring and terrible design choices. The idea that Halflings can be just as strong as humans or whatever is fucking retarded.

The same stat as I noted may mean something very different for halfling and human.

QuoteIt reminds me of my biggest issue with gender based modifiers. Not that they are necessarily unrealistic, but if men get +2 Strength and women get +2 Charisma, then all of the PC fighters will be men and all of the sorcerers (or sorceresses I should say) will be women.

Well only if you allow re-distribution tbh.

QuoteIf you make race have no mechanical difference, then it's just "humans in funny suits" which undermines he whole point of role playing a different race in the first place.

That can be enforced in different way than stats.
Just like paladin class was more than it's class abilities.

QuoteAttribute stat profiles may be "minor" to Jhkim, but they are very significant and meaningful to other people.

You mean people not schooled in statistics, huh?

Quotebut at least to myself, and likely many others, such attributes are not merely mechanical, but feed into how an entire society in the aggregate may behave, operate, and value, as well as for individual player characters and NPC's alike.

Which is considering overall power of +2/-2 bonus (which is let us remind generally +1/-1 to roll on freaking swingy d20) ridiculous notion and just bad worldbuilding in terms of sociology :P

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 27, 2021, 10:49:26 PM
They should call them skins

You could have the races be irrelevant, and just differentiate them by skin and hair colour. So whether you're a halfling ginger, elven ginger, or orcish ginger, you're still a ginger and get CHA-2.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 28, 2021, 05:49:27 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 27, 2021, 10:49:26 PM
They should call them skins

You could have the races be irrelevant, and just differentiate them by skin and hair colour. So whether you're a halfling ginger, elven ginger, or orcish ginger, you're still a ginger and get CHA-2.

Well, only CHA-2 if your character is male, anyway. Female gingers get CHA+2.

It was already bland.

This just makes things slightly more bland. 

It's like stubbing your toe when you already broke your other leg.

Quote from: jhkim on May 27, 2021, 01:36:20 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 27, 2021, 11:07:10 AM
I like the idea of non-attribute buffs -- again, it's harsh enough that half-orcs effectively lose two attribute points from character creation, but they get practically nothing in terms of such abilities. I play in a lot of games where point buy is a thing, and as a result attribute points are fairly fungible -- so half-orcs lose out, bigly.

I agree. This is exactly why Savage Worlds abandoned attribute modifiers, and why they are largely meaningless now in later GURPS and Hero editions. Because if attributes are fungible anyway, then the only thing the mods do is introduce min/max possibilities.

Unpacking that a little more...

I think in D&D-like games, attribute mods only work as intended if one is using roll-in-order. If you choose race and then do roll-in-order of attributes, then a +2 Dexterity and -2 Wisdom means that player characters of that race will have on average Dexterity 2 higher than normal, and Wisdom 2 lower than normal. But even so, there will be 20% of characters with higher Wisdom than Dexterity, in reverse of the average.

However, if you use roll-six-times-and-arrange, then the problem is that +2 in your high prime attribute is worth a lot more than -2 in your dump stat. So any player who takes this race will be more effective if they choose a Dex-favoring class, put a high number into Dex and a low number into Wisdom. So the only way they will do otherwise isn't random - it's because the player deliberately takes a less effective character to play against type.

Personally, I dislike introducing this sort of deliberate min-maxing within character creation. Some people see it as a feature that some PCs are more powerful than others, to encourage system mastery. But I think character creation is the wrong time for it. Player characters should start on an equal footing, and tactical decision making should be important during play, not before.

This is why DCC is my preferred system.

Quote from: sureshot on May 27, 2021, 10:25:10 PM
Most games were " humanocentric" because of levels limits. It was either taking vanilla, boring,  bland as fuck human.

Nearly all the most interesting characters in fantasy are human (or at least look human), so no idea why you consider them "bland". Also, are you human yourself?

Quote from: Brad on May 27, 2021, 09:34:09 PM
If you make race have no mechanical difference, then it's just "humans in funny suits" which undermines he whole point of role playing a different race in the first place.

I agree with this, but I don't feel that stat mods help. If the only difference is stats, then an orc is just a really strong human, a dwarf is just a really tough human, etc.

Qualitative differences are what make racial choices interesting for me: stuff like infravision, the ability to smell gold, etc. Merely changing amplitude of a very human trait doesn't create a unique archetype, it's the same archetypal vector represented by ability scores.

A middle ground here is changing the amplitude of qualities that are other than those represented by attributes. For example, making a race faster, heavier, immune to paralysis, etc.

Quote from: Brad on May 28, 2021, 10:17:08 AM

Quote from: sureshot on May 27, 2021, 10:25:10 PM
Most games were " humanocentric" because of levels limits. It was either taking vanilla, boring,  bland as fuck human.

Nearly all the most interesting characters in fantasy are human (or at least look human), so no idea why you consider them "bland". Also, are you human yourself?

So because fantasy novels etc have humans as characters we as players have to limit ourselves to being human. If you have no imagination and want to only play human  characters that is on you. Not all of us feel that way. Some people prefer human and some do not not as a race in fantasy RPGs. Nothing is wrong with either position. Not to mention I live as a human being day in and out. I don't always want to play one in an RPGs

And no I'm not a human I'm an AI posing as a human you fucking donut. Seriously dude get off the drugs, get help. Why would you even ask that. I don't ask the guy taking out my garbage if he really is the garbage guy.

Quote from: sureshot on May 28, 2021, 12:09:17 PMAnd no I'm not a human I'm an AI posing as a human you fucking donut. Seriously dude get off the drugs, get help. Why would you even ask that. I don't ask the guy taking out my garbage if he really is the garbage guy.

Try to make a joke and this is what happens...

Quote from: sureshot on May 28, 2021, 12:09:17 PM

And no I'm not a human I'm an AI posing as a human you fucking donut.

  I thought you were an Autobot Targetmaster.  ;)

Quote from: Wrath of God on May 28, 2021, 05:42:00 AM

QuoteYeah, lots of things. How individual NPC's might view the world and experience the world in significantly different ways, all ultimately derived and inspired from a fixed racial stat framework.

I really doubt it at least among standard +2/-2 races with randomized rolls - which is like standard for non-human.
This is not nearly enough to say NPCs will view world in significantly different ways. In fact at all.
You're race having +2/-2 to Int means one will have more top-notch wizards, but it won't take wizards from later.

So it's basically useless in this distinction unless you follow kinda fake stereotypisation based on just +2 / -2 to some attribute.

You need more, like strong enforced psychology traits, weird physiologies, or just treating the same attributes at members of different races differently like Chris suggested.
I seem to remember game when everything from giant to halfling used the same attributes but very different tables for Skill Challenge Levels.

QuoteYES, they are absolutely boring and terrible design choices. The idea that Halflings can be just as strong as humans or whatever is fucking retarded.

The same stat as I noted may mean something very different for halfling and human.

QuoteIt reminds me of my biggest issue with gender based modifiers. Not that they are necessarily unrealistic, but if men get +2 Strength and women get +2 Charisma, then all of the PC fighters will be men and all of the sorcerers (or sorceresses I should say) will be women.

Well only if you allow re-distribution tbh.

QuoteIf you make race have no mechanical difference, then it's just "humans in funny suits" which undermines he whole point of role playing a different race in the first place.

That can be enforced in different way than stats.
Just like paladin class was more than it's class abilities.

QuoteAttribute stat profiles may be "minor" to Jhkim, but they are very significant and meaningful to other people.

You mean people not schooled in statistics, huh?

Quotebut at least to myself, and likely many others, such attributes are not merely mechanical, but feed into how an entire society in the aggregate may behave, operate, and value, as well as for individual player characters and NPC's alike.

Which is considering overall power of +2/-2 bonus (which is let us remind generally +1/-1 to roll on freaking swingy d20) ridiculous notion and just bad worldbuilding in terms of sociology :P

Greetings!

Well, I think that a race that has a +2 Racial Intelligence modifier can represent a number of things, for the individual, or the society.

WTF does statistics or knowledge of statistics have anything to do with WTF I said? I'm mostly talking about style, impessions, inspirations that come from having a racial attribute profile, as opposed to having all races have ZERO or all the same.

That doesn't have anything to do with *statistics*.

You obviously think it's ridiculous, that a +2 bonus to a stat might suggest anything sociologically? Great. I think that not seeing such a sociological aspect isn't good worldbuilding, but actually kind of dull and unimaginative. Definitely not my preference.

If you are happy with races having no racial attribute profile, or all races being the same, well, *shrug* Good for you. I think it is a terrible idea though.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Removing Racial Stat Modifiers from the game altogether is better than allowing Racial Stat Modifiers to be fluid, and left up to the whim of each individual player; because this is the heydey of the Special Snowflake Character.

"WTF does statistics or knowledge of statistics have anything to do with WTF I said? I'm mostly talking about style, impessions, inspirations that come from having a racial attribute profile, as opposed to having all races have ZERO or all the same.

That doesn't have anything to do with *statistics*."

Which can be easily done without racial modifiers. And even better by simply crafting cultures and mentalities of various species rather than - we throw +2 on Wis, so GM's will be inspired to MAKE THEM SPIRITUAL PEOPLE. So freaking inspired!

QuoteYou obviously think it's ridiculous, that a +2 bonus to a stat might suggest anything sociologically? Great. I think that not seeing such a sociological aspect isn't good worldbuilding, but actually kind of dull and unimaginative. Definitely not my preference.

Yup. I think +2/-2 in terms of value of stat in D&D means nothing and is like irrelevant when crafting fictional species sociology, and irrelevant in terms of worldbuilding.
I mean if one species have Int only between 6 and 10 and another only between 16 and 20... then yes that's kinda relevant, but +2... don't be silly.
Elves not being able to sleep is 1000 much more inspiring in terms of fictional sociology than +2/-2... which in 99% ends up with making stereotypical races where everyone is like +8/-8 more than +2/-2... that's mostly dull and unimaginative.

(And don't get me wrong - I like racial modifiers but that's because I'm kinda like - fate and chance in character crafting guy, so it's add certain variety - but only with rolling in order ;), but I find it generally useless from worldbuilding perspective.)

QuoteNearly all the most interesting characters in fantasy are human (or at least look human), so no idea why you consider them "bland". Also, are you human yourself?

I mean if we talk about look human then like most of fantasy fictional species is human with some extra changes. Small curly headed humans, immortal pointy-eared humans, bearded stocky humans, green shroom humans, cat-humans, horse-humans, and so on.

QuoteIf you make race have no mechanical difference, then it's just "humans in funny suits" which undermines he whole point of role playing a different race in the first place.

Well... yes. But it does not mean it has to be ingrained specifically in attributes.

QuoteRemoving Racial Stat Modifiers from the game altogether is better than allowing Racial Stat Modifiers to be fluid, and left up to the whim of each individual player; because this is the heydey of the Special Snowflake Character.

Yup.

Quote from: Brad on May 28, 2021, 12:17:26 PM
Try to make a joke and this is what happens...

With all due respect your shtick is trying to push people buttons to get a reaction. Claiming it was a "joke" after it gets a negative response is BS imo. It's still a weird response to give as a rebuttal.

The worst thing about opening racial stat attributes is that it allows anyone to pretend to be a power gamer.

We see you.

We fucking see you.

Personally while I understand why many players want to play weird, non-human races, I generally prefer not to have non-humans in my games.

For example, one of my homebrew campaign settings has a wide range of human ethnicities, so if you want to play the typical heavy-drinking Scots stereotype you can play a character from X region, or if you want to play a pompous jerk who looks down on all the uncultured folk then you can play a character from Y region. I have a sense for what these different groups are like and I do have some rules for what characteristics typify each race. That being said, PCs are exceptional people. It doesn't bother me if someone wants to play against type, including not sharing mechanical characteristics common to a given ethne.

This setting also has non-humans, but I really prefer for these to be actually non-human in their motivations and thinking style. One race has some form of communal memory, another has a mindset which is effectively incapable of becoming bored. In a lot of cases the concerns and mentality of non-humanoid creatures puts them on the sidelines of adventures, because they just don't care if Baron Badguy is making a power play for the throne.

Quote from: Zelen on May 29, 2021, 12:18:55 AM
Personally while I understand why many players want to play weird, non-human races, I generally prefer not to have non-humans in my games.

For example, one of my homebrew campaign settings has a wide range of human ethnicities, so if you want to play the typical heavy-drinking Scots stereotype you can play a character from X region, or if you want to play a pompous jerk who looks down on all the uncultured folk then you can play a character from Y region. I have a sense for what these different groups are like and I do have some sense of what characteristics typify each race. That being said, PCs are exceptional people. It doesn't bother me if someone wants to play against type, including not sharing characteristics common to a given ethne.

This setting also has non-humans, but I really prefer for these to be actually non-human in their motivations and thinking style. One race has some form of communal memory, another has a mindset which is effectively incapable of becoming bored. In a lot of cases the concerns and mentality of non-humanoid creatures puts them on the sidelines of adventures, because they just don't care if Baron Badguy is making a power play for the throne.

Yeah, but that's something you address in Session Zero. Lay it out for the players and explain why.

I've had some fun with the oddball PC in my group (an aarakocra). On at least one occasion an NPC has tried to pluck feathers from her (because of an old wives' tale about feathers of the bird-people being a panacea against some misfortune).

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 29, 2021, 12:30:53 AM
Yeah, but that's something you address in Session Zero. Lay it out for the players and explain why.

I've had some fun with the oddball PC in my group (an aarakocra). On at least one occasion an NPC has tried to pluck feathers from her (because of an old wives' tale about feathers of the bird-people being a panacea against some misfortune).

Yup. I understand the oddball races can be fun, and I'm perfectly okay with playing in games that are freakshows if that's set out as the premise. One campaign I remember fondly was a bunch of PCs that were literally monsters escaped from a zoo. Everyone played something crazy like a Minotaur, Sphinx, etc.

I'm currently playing a Leshy in PF2 campaign. Because it's Pathfinder, in which races are more like the Star Trek assumption of "Humans with forehead ridges" than actual alien mindsets, I'm not trying to play up the mentality differences. That being said, even just having a different physiology & diet creates some interesting nuances to roleplaying that is fun to explore.

Village Idiot: The Threadening. WW's next WODumb book coming soon. There will be only one race that is made up of stat mods because everything else is oh so bland and intollerable.

Quote from: Zelen on May 29, 2021, 01:04:59 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 29, 2021, 12:30:53 AM
Yeah, but that's something you address in Session Zero. Lay it out for the players and explain why.

I've had some fun with the oddball PC in my group (an aarakocra). On at least one occasion an NPC has tried to pluck feathers from her (because of an old wives' tale about feathers of the bird-people being a panacea against some misfortune).

Yup. I understand the oddball races can be fun, and I'm perfectly okay with playing in games that are freakshows if that's set out as the premise. One campaign I remember fondly was a bunch of PCs that were literally monsters escaped from a zoo. Everyone played something crazy like a Minotaur, Sphinx, etc.

I'm currently playing a Leshy in PF2 campaign. Because it's Pathfinder, in which races are more like the Star Trek assumption of "Humans with forehead ridges" than actual alien mindsets, I'm not trying to play up the mentality differences. That being said, even just having a different physiology & diet creates some interesting nuances to roleplaying that is fun to explore.

I have to admit, I was going back through the PF2 book and...  they haven't jettisoned modifiers. Okay, the ancestry/heritage stuff seems silly, but it fills the same slots as race/background. And the increased racial flexibility means you don't get elves/humans/dwarves/etc that are all the same.

Quote from: sureshot on May 28, 2021, 10:15:17 PM
With all due respect your shtick is trying to push people buttons to get a reaction. Claiming it was a "joke" after it gets a negative response is BS imo. It's still a weird response to give as a rebuttal.

Maybe go get checked for autism...

In retrospect it's kind of surprising that Paizo of all people didn't purposefully remove racial attribute modifiers. They're politically motivated enough to try to purposefully manipulate the language of gamers by removing the word "race", but somehow they couldn't justify removing the math itself.*

This shows an interesting tension in PF2 since I am confident the core demographic of Pathfinder prefers a crunch-heavy system where flavor/roleplaying choices are reflected in a mathematical system. I also believe that Paizo itself doesn't really want to create a crunch-heavy system.



* Caveat: While all the races in Pathfinder 2 have modifiers, I think in general there's enough stat bonuses given out that the stat differences in races basically don't matter. It's not 3rd edition where you get a mathematically significant race distinction to start with, and very few chances to change that.

In Pathfinder 2 you start with basically +2 boost to 2 stats from Race, but you also get +2 boost to 4 stats from Level at 1st/5th/10th/etc. Additionally, once you hit 18 in any attribute a boost goes from being a +2 to a +1 value.

Basically the long and short of it is, the quantity of boosts, and their diminishing returns, guarantees that all races of characters are within a certain bonus range (at best a difference of 1 on a d20), unless you purposefully sabotage your character. It's not terrible because over time your character does get race-based feats that provide distinguishing characteristics, but I do think that it's more or less a trick to give out so many boosts that characters end up being the same anyway.

At a guess because Paizo is on such tenuous ground that they are afraid to change too much for fear of losing more of their dwindling customer base.

Quote from: Brad on May 29, 2021, 11:34:36 AM

Quote from: sureshot on May 28, 2021, 10:15:17 PM
With all due respect your shtick is trying to push people buttons to get a reaction. Claiming it was a "joke" after it gets a negative response is BS imo. It's still a weird response to give as a rebuttal.

Maybe go get checked for autism...

Says the poster child for Autism himself. If you can't handle pushback go fuck yourself then. I'm done wasting time you.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 29, 2021, 12:30:53 AM

Quote from: Zelen on May 29, 2021, 12:18:55 AM
Personally while I understand why many players want to play weird, non-human races, I generally prefer not to have non-humans in my games.

Yeah, but that's something you address in Session Zero. Lay it out for the players and explain why.

I've had some fun with the oddball PC in my group (an aarakocra). On at least one occasion an NPC has tried to pluck feathers from her (because of an old wives' tale about feathers of the bird-people being a panacea against some misfortune).

I would agree that this seems like something to handle non-mechanically in Session Zero. If I as GM don't want non-humans for flavor reasons, then I'd just disallow non-humans or talk to my players about why I'd prefer mostly human characters and negotiate it.

I think just having mechanical incentives is the wrong way to approach it. i.e. If I give extra power boosts to human characters, then the min-maxing players all take humans and kick even more ass -- while non-min-maxing players take non-humans and are even more outclassed by the min-maxers.

Quote from: sureshot on May 29, 2021, 01:30:35 PM

Quote from: Brad on May 29, 2021, 11:34:36 AM

Quote from: sureshot on May 28, 2021, 10:15:17 PM
With all due respect your shtick is trying to push people buttons to get a reaction. Claiming it was a "joke" after it gets a negative response is BS imo. It's still a weird response to give as a rebuttal.

Maybe go get checked for autism...

Says the poster child for Autism himself. If you can't handle pushback go fuck yourself then. I'm done wasting time you.

Handle pushback for what? You're taking this shit waaaaaay too seriously. Sad!

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 05:01:25 AM
Greetings!

Yeah, the whole "+2 and +1" to whatever racial stats you want, rearrange as desired, is just total BS and I think when you draw back and really think about different, distinctive *races*--that doing such a policy is just fucking bland and weak. WTF? I can understand to a point saying, "All Gnomes have whatever stats, rearrange as you desire" can be attractive, but when you then apply the same precise attributes to every race, it just seems to make them all so bland and colourless to my way of thinking. Halflings are just as strong as Half Ogres? Half Ogres are just as swift and agile as Halflings? Same thing goes for Elves, and a dozen other races. The entire rationale and motivation behind such a rule as presented by WOTC is so much nonsense.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Could you post a link? I haven't bought or played any 5e in many years, so I'm not up to date on this stuff any more.

However, if those are the new rules, then it sounds.......boring. Is the intention to make the game more politically correct? Whatever they're trying to do, it sounds like everyone is now just a human in a different skinsuit. In which case, why bother?

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 30, 2021, 12:39:25 AM

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 05:01:25 AM
Greetings!

Yeah, the whole "+2 and +1" to whatever racial stats you want, rearrange as desired, is just total BS and I think when you draw back and really think about different, distinctive *races*--that doing such a policy is just fucking bland and weak. WTF? I can understand to a point saying, "All Gnomes have whatever stats, rearrange as you desire" can be attractive, but when you then apply the same precise attributes to every race, it just seems to make them all so bland and colourless to my way of thinking. Halflings are just as strong as Half Ogres? Half Ogres are just as swift and agile as Halflings? Same thing goes for Elves, and a dozen other races. The entire rationale and motivation behind such a rule as presented by WOTC is so much nonsense.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Could you post a link? I haven't bought or played any 5e in many years, so I'm not up to date on this stuff any more.

However, if those are the new rules, then it sounds.......boring. Is the intention to make the game more politically correct? Whatever they're trying to do, it sounds like everyone is now just a human in a different skinsuit. In which case, why bother?

Greetings!

Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't have any links. Between Pundits several videos on the topic, as well as others covering Tashas, or the Cauldron, or whatever, they discussed the new rules contained within. I recall hearing several sources describe the same thing.

Indeed, such a change seems pathetic and terrible to me. Apparently, some people like not having racial attributes, but I'm definitely not one of them. Some also like the player choice thing, and while I also see some merit in that--I mentioned for a few subraces for example, where the particular attributes *within* a race may not be terribly different, such customization has merit. Likewise for Humans and Half Elves. However, for *ALL* races, I think such a policy is wrong-headed. But, each DM can make that call for themselves of course.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on May 30, 2021, 12:39:25 AM
Could you post a link? I haven't bought or played any 5e in many years, so I'm not up to date on this stuff any more.

However, if those are the new rules, then it sounds.......boring. Is the intention to make the game more politically correct? Whatever they're trying to do, it sounds like everyone is now just a human in a different skinsuit. In which case, why bother?

He's referring to Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.  The "Customizing Your Origin" rules in chapter one allow you to disregard the published racial archetypes.  The hand waving is the ASIs are not bio-essentialism but tendencies in the adventuring population of the races.

While this is supposed to be an optional rule, we are seeing new races introduced after Tasha's simply using put the +1 and +2 where you want approach.  They are no longer defining the typical profile for the adjustment.

I'm not exactly sure where the kobold's negative strength modifier from Volo's was redacted officially.

It was giving orcs and kobolds negatives that kicked off this SJW outcry because its somehow racist and bad and wrong and we MUST "fix" it!!!!!!!

It would have started earlier if the PHB had presented halflings or gnomes or anything with negative stats.

https://web.archive.org/web/20111219074734/http://the-qlc.com/loserz/go/209

https://www.rpgcrossing.com/showthread.php?t=118403

Quote from: Omega on May 31, 2021, 07:39:06 AM
It was giving orcs and kobolds negatives that kicked off this SJW outcry because its somehow racist and bad and wrong and we MUST "fix" it!!!!!!!

It would have started earlier if the PHB had presented halflings or gnomes or anything with negative stats.

Well, it's sort of curious why halflings and gnomes stopped having negative stats. Here's the edition progression, focusing in on halfling.

0e: no ability adjustments

1e: human no adjustment, halfling -1 Str/+1 Dex

BX: no ability adjustments

2e: human no adjustment, halfling -1 Str/+1 Dex

3e: human no adjustment, halfling -2 Str/+2 Dex

4e: human +2 to any one stat, halfling +2 Dex/+2 Cha

5e: human +1 to every stat, halfling +2 Dex

I feel like particularly with the human adjustments in 4e and 5e, it seems like shifting back and forth -- dealing particularly with the min/max problem, that any stat bonus to core ability is not at all balanced by a penalty to a low stat.

I wondered about the removal of negative mods too. From playtesting phase we got the impression it was a bit of "housecleaning" as it were and removal of a bit of bookkeeping which seemed a big goal early on and well into the late phase.

The very first 2012 playtest packs had no stat mods at all. There were just class+race combos.
A month or two later and races were now somewhat like they are in the final product. BUT. All non-human races had just ONE stat mod dependant on sub-race. example a Hill Dwarf was +1 CON and a Mountain Dwarf was +1 WIS. Lightfoot Halfling was +1 DEX and Stout was +1 CHA. Humans on the other hand got +2 to one stat of their choice and +1 to the rest.
A year later and things were changed to pretty much what you got in the final product. Positive stat mods of +2 to one and +1 to another and humans get +1 to all. But no negatives for any entry.

Why are stat boosts reduced to +1? I thought the reason why they were +2 in 3e was because that was equivalent to a +1 ability bonus (since ability scores and ability bonuses scale 1:2).

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 05:56:12 PM
Why are stat boosts reduced to +1? I thought the reason why they were +2 in 3e was because that was equivalent to a +1 ability bonus (since ability scores and ability bonuses scale 1:2).

But in 1E and 2E, ability bonuses were generally *less* than 1:2 with ability score, and there the adjustments were only +1/-1 to ability score. Especially with roll-in-order as the generation method, the +1/-1 adjustments in 1E and 2E were much less big a deal than the adjustments in 3E.

So the sequence is that they made a more important difference (especially for min/maxers) in 3E, and then walked the change back some in 4E and 5E.

Personally, I think that without roll-in-order, the adjustments make no sense anymore, and are now just a tool for min/maxing.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 05:56:12 PM
Why are stat boosts reduced to +1? I thought the reason why they were +2 in 3e was because that was equivalent to a +1 ability bonus (since ability scores and ability bonuses scale 1:2).

Because WotC is prioritzing the old school roll your attributes or use an array with odd values in it approach to ability scores where a +1 added to an odd score will result in a +1 bump. The result too is that humans are very nearly broken in point buy as the cost jumps are always on the evens so +1 to every stat amounts to typically +5 to your total ability modifiers because you only need assign an 11 for a +1, 13 for a +2 or 15 for a +3 (and under arrays and point buy the highest you can assign is a 15 so that +2 is still only bumping you to a 17 (+3).

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 01, 2021, 07:32:16 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 05:56:12 PM
Why are stat boosts reduced to +1? I thought the reason why they were +2 in 3e was because that was equivalent to a +1 ability bonus (since ability scores and ability bonuses scale 1:2).

Because WotC is prioritzing the old school roll your attributes or use an array with odd values in it approach to ability scores where a +1 added to an odd score will result in a +1 bump. The result too is that humans are very nearly broken in point buy as the cost jumps are always on the evens so +1 to every stat amounts to typically +5 to your total ability modifiers because you only need assign an 11 for a +1, 13 for a +2 or 15 for a +3 (and under arrays and point buy the highest you can assign is a 15 so that +2 is still only bumping you to a 17 (+3).

That doesn't make sense. 5e uses the same bonuses as 3e.
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Ability%20Scores#content

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 09:13:44 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 01, 2021, 07:32:16 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 05:56:12 PM
Why are stat boosts reduced to +1? I thought the reason why they were +2 in 3e was because that was equivalent to a +1 ability bonus (since ability scores and ability bonuses scale 1:2).

Because WotC is prioritzing the old school roll your attributes or use an array with odd values in it approach to ability scores where a +1 added to an odd score will result in a +1 bump. The result too is that humans are very nearly broken in point buy as the cost jumps are always on the evens so +1 to every stat amounts to typically +5 to your total ability modifiers because you only need assign an 11 for a +1, 13 for a +2 or 15 for a +3 (and under arrays and point buy the highest you can assign is a 15 so that +2 is still only bumping you to a 17 (+3).

That doesn't make sense. 5e uses the same bonuses as 3e.
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Ability%20Scores#content

He means that with a default human it's basically a point earlier because you add a point to everything.

It's dubious because there's not an awful lot you can do with those extra points in the ability scores you don't really need.  A Charisma of 9 instead of 8 doesn't really net you anything worthwhile.

The default human is usually viewed as weak.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 09:13:44 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 01, 2021, 07:32:16 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 01, 2021, 05:56:12 PM
Why are stat boosts reduced to +1? I thought the reason why they were +2 in 3e was because that was equivalent to a +1 ability bonus (since ability scores and ability bonuses scale 1:2).

Because WotC is prioritzing the old school roll your attributes or use an array with odd values in it approach to ability scores where a +1 added to an odd score will result in a +1 bump. The result too is that humans are very nearly broken in point buy as the cost jumps are always on the evens so +1 to every stat amounts to typically +5 to your total ability modifiers because you only need assign an 11 for a +1, 13 for a +2 or 15 for a +3 (and under arrays and point buy the highest you can assign is a 15 so that +2 is still only bumping you to a 17 (+3).

That doesn't make sense. 5e uses the same bonuses as 3e.
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Ability%20Scores#content

Same stat bonuses, yes. But different point buy costs for attributes.

Basically, in 3e using Point Buy you ALWAYS bought as many stats as you could up to even numbers to get the most bonus for your points (i.e. get a 10 or a 12, not an 11) and all the racial mods were in even increments. You could also buy your stats up as high as 18 before racial modifiers (though in my experience 16 was more typical in all but the most high powered games.

By contrast, those +1s in 5e meant that it was sometimes better to buy a stat up to an odd value because the +1 would push it to an even value (i.e. buy up to 15 +1 to make it 16). You also could not use point buy in 5e to buy a starting stat higher than a 15 (+2).

And the trick with default human under 27 point point buy is you get assign a 15, 13, 13, 13, 11, 8 and end up with a 16 (+3), 14 (+2), 14 (+2), 14 (+2), 12 (+1), 9 (-1)... so a 16 in your prime attribute, at least a 14 in each of the primary save stats (if your class' prime stat isn't Dex, Con or Wis alread) and a +1 in something else to boot. That also means at least +2 hp/level, +2 to AC, +2 to Perception and +2 to hit and damage with light/ranged weapons... AND you can be any class you want with these.

Option two for default human using point buy is 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8... which works really well if Dex, Con or Wis is your class' key stat since now you've got a at least a +3 to all the main saves, +3 hp/level, +3 to perception and +3 to AC and to hit and damage with light and ranged weapons. Sure they're crazy vulnerable in that they're not strong, intelligent or charming... but some rogue, ranger, monk or a light weapon focused barbarian wouldn't be TOO inconvenienced by that.

By contrast for a nonhuman with a +2 and +1, your best array in point buy is 15 (to go with the +1), 14 (to go with with the +2), 12, 12, 10, 8... which results in a +3, +3, +1, +1, +0, -1... and you better pick a class where its key attribute aligns with one of your racial bonuses.

+6 and the ability to leverage the point savings of odd scores is VERY useful. It can get downright broken if you end up with four or more odd stats using random generation. +1 to all gets really tempting when you rolled a 17, 15, 15, 13, 11, 10 on your 4d6 drop lowest.

My eyes glazed over looking at those stat arrays and bonuses and how to get the most effective bumps and whatever else. Now I remember why I stopped playing 3.X and 5th edition...why not just give everyone an 18 in every stat and be done with it?

Quote from: Brad on June 02, 2021, 09:15:56 AM
My eyes glazed over looking at those stat arrays and bonuses and how to get the most effective bumps and whatever else. Now I remember why I stopped playing 3.X and 5th edition...why not just give everyone an 18 in every stat and be done with it?

Brad, you insipid fool, with the standard points/array of 5e, it is not possible to have anything like you propose even by 20th level (although you are almost certain to have a 20 in your prime score well before then).

Quote from: Brad on June 02, 2021, 09:15:56 AM
My eyes glazed over looking at those stat arrays and bonuses and how to get the most effective bumps and whatever else. Now I remember why I stopped playing 3.X and 5th edition...why not just give everyone an 18 in every stat and be done with it?

You don't get all 18's because the idea is that you're not good at everything. Scores when rolled can give anything from a +5 to a -4. Using an array or point buy can range from +3 to -1... and unless you're human you're mostly going to have +1 or +0 with just a couple of +3's.

As to all the numbers, here is the simple version;

Six +1s (+6 total to your ststs) is much better than a +2 and a +1 (+3 total to your stats) especially when you can buy your stats and the odd numbers are cheaper to buy because bonuses improve on even numbers.

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 02, 2021, 10:04:44 AMYou don't get all 18's because the idea is that you're not good at everything.

Stop triggering me.

Now I remember why I prefer dungeoncrawl Risus.

Quote from: Brad on June 02, 2021, 10:19:17 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 02, 2021, 10:04:44 AMYou don't get all 18's because the idea is that you're not good at everything.

Stop triggering me.

And here we have the biggest problem with text-based communication in the present age...

(https://giantbomb1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/square_small/9/94495/2243504-fry-can-t-tell-meme-generator-can-t-tell-if-sarcasm-or-serious-1a9500.jpg)

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 05:01:25 AM
Greetings!

Yeah, the whole "+2 and +1" to whatever racial stats you want, rearrange as desired, is just total BS and I think when you draw back and really think about different, distinctive *races*--that doing such a policy is just fucking bland and weak. WTF? I can understand to a point saying, "All Gnomes have whatever stats, rearrange as you desire" can be attractive, but when you then apply the same precise attributes to every race, it just seems to make them all so bland and colourless to my way of thinking. Halflings are just as strong as Half Ogres? Half Ogres are just as swift and agile as Halflings? Same thing goes for Elves, and a dozen other races. The entire rationale and motivation behind such a rule as presented by WOTC is so much nonsense.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You could...like NOT use them? I have Tasha's Cauldron and I don't allow that. Thing is, more options and variants aren't BAD, per-se, but not one is being forced to use them all the time. Same with no more elven-focused Bladesingers. In my Realms game, they're still only allowed to be Elves and grudgingly half-elves.

Quote from: Batman on June 02, 2021, 01:04:31 PM

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 05:01:25 AM
Greetings!

Yeah, the whole "+2 and +1" to whatever racial stats you want, rearrange as desired, is just total BS and I think when you draw back and really think about different, distinctive *races*--that doing such a policy is just fucking bland and weak. WTF? I can understand to a point saying, "All Gnomes have whatever stats, rearrange as you desire" can be attractive, but when you then apply the same precise attributes to every race, it just seems to make them all so bland and colourless to my way of thinking. Halflings are just as strong as Half Ogres? Half Ogres are just as swift and agile as Halflings? Same thing goes for Elves, and a dozen other races. The entire rationale and motivation behind such a rule as presented by WOTC is so much nonsense.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You could...like NOT use them? I have Tasha's Cauldron and I don't allow that. Thing is, more options and variants aren't BAD, per-se, but not one is being forced to use them all the time. Same with no more elven-focused Bladesingers. In my Realms game, they're still only allowed to be Elves and grudgingly half-elves.

It's the motivations that matter to me. They are motivated by things other than what makes the best game.

Why does D&D even still have separate ability scores and ability modifiers? Why doesn't it go the True20 route of just using ability modifiers? Ability scores just seem like a needless overcomplication at present.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 02, 2021, 01:50:00 PM
Why does D&D even still have separate ability scores and ability modifiers? Why doesn't it go the True20 route of just using ability modifiers? Ability scores just seem like a needless overcomplication at present.

Because:

• Random ability score generation is still the default assumption.
• Using just the modifier doesn't solve anything when ASIs from multiple sources can be in half increments of the modifier.

Quote from: Palleon on June 02, 2021, 03:46:56 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 02, 2021, 01:50:00 PM
Why does D&D even still have separate ability scores and ability modifiers? Why doesn't it go the True20 route of just using ability modifiers? Ability scores just seem like a needless overcomplication at present.

Because:

• Random ability score generation is still the default assumption.
• Using just the modifier doesn't solve anything when ASIs from multiple sources can be in half increments of the modifier.

Then rebuild the system

So what take the dnd out of dnd? ::)

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 02, 2021, 12:59:41 PM

Quote from: Brad on June 02, 2021, 10:19:17 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 02, 2021, 10:04:44 AMYou don't get all 18's because the idea is that you're not good at everything.

Stop triggering me.

And here we have the biggest problem with text-based communication in the present age...

(https://giantbomb1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/square_small/9/94495/2243504-fry-can-t-tell-meme-generator-can-t-tell-if-sarcasm-or-serious-1a9500.jpg)

I'm contacting my lawyer for this persistent harassment. My PTSD caused me to miss the entire day of work due to your comments.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 02, 2021, 01:50:00 PM
Why does D&D even still have separate ability scores and ability modifiers? Why doesn't it go the True20 route of just using ability modifiers? Ability scores just seem like a needless overcomplication at present.

(https://c-cl.cdn.smule.com/rs-s27/arr/b0/65/0b974172-787b-4e2f-9057-14b7bd406ab6_256.jpg)

Quote from: horsesoldier on June 02, 2021, 01:47:58 PM

Quote from: Batman on June 02, 2021, 01:04:31 PM

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2021, 05:01:25 AM
Greetings!

Yeah, the whole "+2 and +1" to whatever racial stats you want, rearrange as desired, is just total BS and I think when you draw back and really think about different, distinctive *races*--that doing such a policy is just fucking bland and weak. WTF? I can understand to a point saying, "All Gnomes have whatever stats, rearrange as you desire" can be attractive, but when you then apply the same precise attributes to every race, it just seems to make them all so bland and colourless to my way of thinking. Halflings are just as strong as Half Ogres? Half Ogres are just as swift and agile as Halflings? Same thing goes for Elves, and a dozen other races. The entire rationale and motivation behind such a rule as presented by WOTC is so much nonsense.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You could...like NOT use them? I have Tasha's Cauldron and I don't allow that. Thing is, more options and variants aren't BAD, per-se, but not one is being forced to use them all the time. Same with no more elven-focused Bladesingers. In my Realms game, they're still only allowed to be Elves and grudgingly half-elves.

It's the motivations that matter to me. They are motivated by things other than what makes the best game.

The motivations are:

1) not everyone uses the same settings or even uses the same concepts for the rules to be placed. Books like TCoE 'gives' (and I use that terms in a sense of - this is OK - on paper) the DM free-reign in doing whatever they want with their setting.

2) 5e, like the past three editions that can before it (2E Skills and Powers, 3/3.5/PF, and 4E) are heavily player-centric in terms of books application and usage. They are created for Players to comb through and find fun things to do. With that said, supplements like Tasha's gives players even more room to be creative with the rules for their enjoyment, with the creator's assumption that the DM is fine with using those rules or allowing those options.

Here's the thing that will always confuse me about this issue: Where are the DMs with backbones? These must be a fabled people or enmeshed with their older versions as to not even bother looking at later stuff. That has to be the only explanation, otherwise these new products would be looked at and either assimilated into the group's campaigns OR just thoroughly ignored and banned. Its like some people rested HARD on the Core assumptions of nearly non-existent rare/exotic races and Lawful-Good only paladins being written into the rules. Yet, when those restrictions were removed they legitimately had zero answer for why these were prevalent in their own games - "because the book says so..." - I guess was good enough.

What makes the "best" game is the story and concept the DM/GM creates that their players have fun running though. More options won't hamper that in anyway SO LONG as the DM has reasons for those options not being prevalent. It's not exactly a difficult concept to run with either.   

Yeah. Like, if I wanted to enforce a setting where all the PC races looked like humans in makeup to replicate the aesthetic of LotR, then I'd... do that.

If my players wanted to play dragonborns, tieflings, warforged, or whatever, then they'll either have to do with people running away in terror at the sight of them... or tone down the standard appearances to something that can easily pass for human.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 10, 2021, 02:01:01 PM
Yeah. Like, if I wanted to enforce a setting where all the PC races looked like humans in makeup to replicate the aesthetic of LotR, then I'd... do that.

If my players wanted to play dragonborns, tieflings, warforged, or whatever, then they'll either have to do with people running away in terror at the sight of them... or tone down the standard appearances to something that can easily pass for human.

You seem to be ignoring that there are settings where those races do not look human yet are accepted for what they are. In Eberron,  warforged are seen as reminders of the last great war...probably similar to how the clones were viewed in Star Wars after the Clone Wars ended. Other settings may do something similar with other races.

Why would we ever want to make Warforged good at prosecuting warfare by making their stats good at actual warfare? That would be racist.

Why shouldn't there be heavy magical-practicing race that invented all the systems that codify magic that rely heavily upon having intellectual/spiritual stats *because* their race happened to be strong in those stats, hence evolved (presumably) towards those ends have mechanical stats that reflect this?

Because it's racist if another species doesn't. We're all the same! Warforged <> Elves <> Mindflayers <> Humans.

At least mindflayers are more progressive in that they reproduce via cannibal egg-laying. Very progressive in dispensing with sexual dimorphism outside of hentai fan-art.

Quote from: HappyDaze on June 10, 2021, 02:47:38 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 10, 2021, 02:01:01 PM
Yeah. Like, if I wanted to enforce a setting where all the PC races looked like humans in makeup to replicate the aesthetic of LotR, then I'd... do that.

If my players wanted to play dragonborns, tieflings, warforged, or whatever, then they'll either have to do with people running away in terror at the sight of them... or tone down the standard appearances to something that can easily pass for human.

You seem to be ignoring that there are settings where those races do not look human yet are accepted for what they are. In Eberron,  warforged are seen as reminders of the last great war...probably similar to how the clones were viewed in Star Wars after the Clone Wars ended. Other settings may do something similar with other races.

I wrote my post as a response to those worlds. They're the worlds of freakshow parties, as opposed to the good old days of parties who look like humans in cosplay.

LOL just you wait till the wokeist take a gander to what I'm cooking... Tons of free advertisement for the people that want to play and not be offended by everything.