This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: WOTC Making Racial Stat Attributes All the Same is Weak and Effing Bland!  (Read 9943 times)

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
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.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
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).

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
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

TJS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 796
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.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
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.

Brad

  • Semper Qvantvm Potes
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
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?
It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
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).

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
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.

Brad

  • Semper Qvantvm Potes
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
You don’t get all 18’s because the idea is that you’re not good at everything.

Stop triggering me.
It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
Now I remember why I prefer dungeoncrawl Risus.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
You 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...


Batman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
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.
" I'm Batman "

horsesoldier

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • h
  • Posts: 206
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.

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
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.

Palleon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • P
  • Posts: 140
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.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2021, 03:48:38 PM by Palleon »