So, since the whole "diversity" thing and the whole each character are capable of being whoever they want to be.... it got me thinking, So a while ago WoTC released a variant suggestion that you can have all the races get the base stats removed and while making your character you get +3 points which you can distribute wherever you want or gain stats depending on your class which is probably what we will get if it's like a new errata/rules variant or new phb.
My current campaign is gonna end probably within the next few months and i will start a new one. Which one of these two sound more balanced? I mainly use 27 points to avoid over/under powered PCs. Or should i just keep things as they are and WoTC suggested ideas aren't that good... yet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born under the watch of something from the furthest corners of the far realms.... It knows all.... it sees all... and it asks: "What is it that you want to see?"... and my answer is... ALL"
I like to use a home brew method to generate the stats
Step 1. Assign each stat a priority (Fighter says "Strength is my primary, Con is my secondary, Dex is my 3rd, Wisdom my 4th, Charisma my 5th, Int is my Dump"). Step 2. Consult chart, Step 3. Roll appropriate Dice
Primary Stat: 14+1d4
Secondary Stat: 12 + 1d6
3rd Stat: 6 + 2d6
4th Stat: 3d6
5th Stat: 3d6
Dump Stat: 1d10+2 (There is some argument about the dump stat, some times I play it at 1d6+5)
The advantages were:
Assured everyone got at least 2 stats 13 or above. Kept players happy, never had to re-roll
Not everyone was min-maxed to the hilt. You had Clerics that had an int of 12, Wizards with a Charisma greater than their Con
It's probably easiest to just expand the point build system and give a few more points. For example, new costs would be
Stat
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Cost
0
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
15
18
And characters would get 34 points (equivalent to 27 points plus a typical racial benefit which increases primary from 14 to 16 (+5 points) and a secondary from 13 to 14 (+2 points)).
I like to use a home brew method to generate the stats
Step 1. Assign each stat a priority (Fighter says "Strength is my primary, Con is my secondary, Dex is my 3rd, Wisdom my 4th, Charisma my 5th, Int is my Dump"). Step 2. Consult chart, Step 3. Roll appropriate Dice
What happens if someone wants to play a fighter that isn't strong? Or wants to play a monk or barbarian, where two or three abilitiy scores are equal in importance?
So, since the whole "diversity" thing and the whole each character are capable of being whoever they want to be.... it got me thinking, So a while ago WoTC released a variant suggestion that you can have all the races get the base stats removed and while making your character you get +3 points which you can distribute wherever you want or gain stats depending on your class which is probably what we will get if it's like a new errata/rules variant or new phb.
My current campaign is gonna end probably within the next few months and i will start a new one. Which one of these two sound more balanced? I mainly use 27 points to avoid over/under powered PCs. Or should i just keep things as they are and WoTC suggested ideas aren't that good... yet.
My issue with that is how you address the races that have a different racial ASI configuraion. Changelings used to be unique, for example, in that you could put the "floater" into the same stat as the specific Charisma, allowing you to go all-in for a +3 Charisma and no other racial ASI. Or the Tritons having 3 specific +1s instead of a +2 and a +1. And it will absolutely have ramifications on Kobolds to no longer need to deal with the -2 Strength. It would allow a Kobold to be a Barbarian offensively, instead of going a defensive Dex build, and make Pack Tactics a significant problem.
I like to use a home brew method to generate the stats
Step 1. Assign each stat a priority (Fighter says "Strength is my primary, Con is my secondary, Dex is my 3rd, Wisdom my 4th, Charisma my 5th, Int is my Dump"). Step 2. Consult chart, Step 3. Roll appropriate Dice
What happens if someone wants to play a fighter that isn't strong? Or wants to play a monk or barbarian, where two or three abilitiy scores are equal in importance?
The player decides the priority of their stats, it is agnostic of class. Class is used to differentiate multiple players (in examples posted previously elsewhere -- no other players shown here).
Drag0n_77 is correct. The player decides which stat is their primary, secondary, etc. The fighter can easily say Dex is his Primary, Con is his secondary, etc. He can even choose to Dump his Strength, if he desires.
It makes for a very fun game.
Back to the racial diversity, I have to say I do not like the 'no stat bonuses, 3 points.' If you want that, play a human. Half the reason to play a non-human race is to get the stat bonus. And certain races SHOULD have more fighters or more mages, etc.
I personally like to have a mentor system for non-standard classes. I.E. If you are a Dwarf that chooses to play a Rogue or Sorceror, I will sometimes give you an ally that funds your training. The Dwarf Council is upset that the they have so few Rogues, we need to protect our caravans from these damn tabaxi that are stealing from us. So they fund the "Pranks and Tricks" after school activity, and the Dwarven Militia specifically offers Mastermind and Scouting scholarships to the best members of the Pranks and Tricks Club.
I think the OP’s point was about wizards moving away from the idea that particular races SHOULD be anything Mog. Which honestly I think is the right move, people are free in home games to have the race of elves be magical and the race of orcs be monstrous but that doesn’t mean it has to be coded into the game from the start.
Representation and openness matters, especially about a game that runs on allowing you to let your imagination run wild. There is a big difference between rules that allow you to focus that imagination and limits that just tell you that you can’t be something.
For many that won’t matter, but for some they may want a game that offers them an escape from being told they can’t be something.
Back to the original posters question though - I would say it depends how much work you want to do and your intention for doing it. If your goal is to give your players the freedom to be whatever they want to be class/race wise then it doesn’t matter if the way they get to distribute the first 3 points is not very interesting as long as it’s quick, because that’s not the most interesting part of character creation.
if you wanted a way of making that be a decision then you could have like a system where
a) they can take the basic version
b) they can have a variant that starts with no bonus stats or racial feats. They have X amount to spend on picking from a list of all racial features that the race can have in its variants and an optional feat along with a deciding on a combination point boost of their choice.
A problem with eliminating racial bonuses is that certain racial abilities suddenly change value. For example, a Mountain Dwarf's proficiency with light and medium armor is normally a low value benefit, because every class that finds +2 Strength useful already has those proficiencies, but it's a significant benefit for Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards.
Mog_Dracov Knowing my players, they probably won't agree to this since it could mean that they might get 3 points in one stat which won't be nice (if i am interpreting it correctly)
sardonicmonkey what you said is correct, and i partially agree with you as it opens up a lot of new character concepts and builds for those who wishes it BUT there will probably be races who will outshine others too greatly and others nerfed like mountain dwarves since they gain +2 str +2 Con or how will races with innate spells work? Like High elf extra wizard cantrip, does that mean the casting ability will no longer be intelligence and it will depend on the main class (would be interesting)?
In the end i am kinda happy for the changes because my i love creating classes (that i will probably never play since i DM most of the time) and of course my list of Great Old ones warlock will increase A LOT (Yea i love Lovecrafts stuff a little too much).... Finally, My Goliath GOO tomelock will be a thing T_T
I.e - if they wanted to play halfling they have 15 points to spend an can choose
Any from below -
Lucky - cost 2
Brave - cost 2
Nimble - cost 2
Stealthy - cost 3
Child of the wood - cost 5
Timberwalk - cost 3
Stout - cost 3
This once -
Feat - cost 5
One of the below -
+1 x 3 - cost 2
+2, +1 - cost 1
+3 - cost 3
This may add a lot of complexity for my players and they like the current iteration because of simplicity. With exception to one who seems to not want to leave Artificer at all ever since its release and likes to min max.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born under the watch of something from the furthest corners of the far realms.... It knows all.... it sees all... and it asks: "What is it that you want to see?"... and my answer is... ALL"
Of the +3, just say no more than 2 can go to any one stat. if you look at all the races, with one exception, no race can start with a score of more than 17 when you add racial bonuses (unless you do the manual role system). several races have +2 to a stat, and then +1 to one other stat. the exception is the changeling which gets +2 charisma and then +1 to any stat (which can be applied to charisma as well). not sure why they allowed the changeling to do that as it definitely goes against the norm.
Of the +3, just say no more than 2 can go to any one stat. if you look at all the races, with one exception, no race can start with a score of more than 17 when you add racial bonuses (unless you do the manual role system). several races have +2 to a stat, and then +1 to one other stat. the exception is the changeling which gets +2 charisma and then +1 to any stat (which can be applied to charisma as well). not sure why they allowed the changeling to do that as it definitely goes against the norm.
Probably will do just that. As for why they can go up to +3 for changelings it probably to test out if it was actually broken or not and it seem that it might have not been all that power during the testing ? Or just s typo.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born under the watch of something from the furthest corners of the far realms.... It knows all.... it sees all... and it asks: "What is it that you want to see?"... and my answer is... ALL"
Before the article and for about a year now my group with the campaigns we play, we did away with the set racial ability modifiers. What we did to show individuality was since majority of all racial adjustments was +2 to one stat and +1 to another was just allow the player a +2 to one ability of choice and a +1 to another. Example is a Hill Dwarf wizard; normally +2 con, +1 wisdom. We just allow the player to pick +2 to one ability and a +1 to another.
This has made it to where the racial traits is what makes people determine what race to play for us. It has worked well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, since the whole "diversity" thing and the whole each character are capable of being whoever they want to be.... it got me thinking, So a while ago WoTC released a variant suggestion that you can have all the races get the base stats removed and while making your character you get +3 points which you can distribute wherever you want or gain stats depending on your class which is probably what we will get if it's like a new errata/rules variant or new phb.
My current campaign is gonna end probably within the next few months and i will start a new one. Which one of these two sound more balanced? I mainly use 27 points to avoid over/under powered PCs. Or should i just keep things as they are and WoTC suggested ideas aren't that good... yet.
Born under the watch of something from the furthest corners of the far realms.... It knows all.... it sees all... and it asks: "What is it that you want to see?"... and my answer is... ALL"
I like to use a home brew method to generate the stats
Step 1. Assign each stat a priority (Fighter says "Strength is my primary, Con is my secondary, Dex is my 3rd, Wisdom my 4th, Charisma my 5th, Int is my Dump"). Step 2. Consult chart, Step 3. Roll appropriate Dice
Primary Stat: 14+1d4
Secondary Stat: 12 + 1d6
3rd Stat: 6 + 2d6
4th Stat: 3d6
5th Stat: 3d6
Dump Stat: 1d10+2 (There is some argument about the dump stat, some times I play it at 1d6+5)
The advantages were:
It's probably easiest to just expand the point build system and give a few more points. For example, new costs would be
And characters would get 34 points (equivalent to 27 points plus a typical racial benefit which increases primary from 14 to 16 (+5 points) and a secondary from 13 to 14 (+2 points)).
What happens if someone wants to play a fighter that isn't strong? Or wants to play a monk or barbarian, where two or three abilitiy scores are equal in importance?
My issue with that is how you address the races that have a different racial ASI configuraion. Changelings used to be unique, for example, in that you could put the "floater" into the same stat as the specific Charisma, allowing you to go all-in for a +3 Charisma and no other racial ASI. Or the Tritons having 3 specific +1s instead of a +2 and a +1. And it will absolutely have ramifications on Kobolds to no longer need to deal with the -2 Strength. It would allow a Kobold to be a Barbarian offensively, instead of going a defensive Dex build, and make Pack Tactics a significant problem.
The player decides the priority of their stats, it is agnostic of class. Class is used to differentiate multiple players (in examples posted previously elsewhere -- no other players shown here).
Drag0n_77 is correct. The player decides which stat is their primary, secondary, etc. The fighter can easily say Dex is his Primary, Con is his secondary, etc. He can even choose to Dump his Strength, if he desires.
It makes for a very fun game.
Back to the racial diversity, I have to say I do not like the 'no stat bonuses, 3 points.' If you want that, play a human. Half the reason to play a non-human race is to get the stat bonus. And certain races SHOULD have more fighters or more mages, etc.
I personally like to have a mentor system for non-standard classes. I.E. If you are a Dwarf that chooses to play a Rogue or Sorceror, I will sometimes give you an ally that funds your training. The Dwarf Council is upset that the they have so few Rogues, we need to protect our caravans from these damn tabaxi that are stealing from us. So they fund the "Pranks and Tricks" after school activity, and the Dwarven Militia specifically offers Mastermind and Scouting scholarships to the best members of the Pranks and Tricks Club.
I think the OP’s point was about wizards moving away from the idea that particular races SHOULD be anything Mog. Which honestly I think is the right move, people are free in home games to have the race of elves be magical and the race of orcs be monstrous but that doesn’t mean it has to be coded into the game from the start.
Representation and openness matters, especially about a game that runs on allowing you to let your imagination run wild. There is a big difference between rules that allow you to focus that imagination and limits that just tell you that you can’t be something.
For many that won’t matter, but for some they may want a game that offers them an escape from being told they can’t be something.
Back to the original posters question though - I would say it depends how much work you want to do and your intention for doing it. If your goal is to give your players the freedom to be whatever they want to be class/race wise then it doesn’t matter if the way they get to distribute the first 3 points is not very interesting as long as it’s quick, because that’s not the most interesting part of character creation.
if you wanted a way of making that be a decision then you could have like a system where
a) they can take the basic version
b) they can have a variant that starts with no bonus stats or racial feats. They have X amount to spend on picking from a list of all racial features that the race can have in its variants and an optional feat along with a deciding on a combination point boost of their choice.
I.e - if they wanted to play halfling they have 15 points to spend an can choose
Any from below -
Lucky - cost 2
Brave - cost 2
Nimble - cost 2
Stealthy - cost 3
Child of the wood - cost 5
Timberwalk - cost 3
Stout - cost 3
This once -
Feat - cost 5
One of the below -
+1 x 3 - cost 2
+2, +1 - cost 1
+3 - cost 3
A problem with eliminating racial bonuses is that certain racial abilities suddenly change value. For example, a Mountain Dwarf's proficiency with light and medium armor is normally a low value benefit, because every class that finds +2 Strength useful already has those proficiencies, but it's a significant benefit for Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards.
Mog_Dracov Knowing my players, they probably won't agree to this since it could mean that they might get 3 points in one stat which won't be nice (if i am interpreting it correctly)
sardonicmonkey what you said is correct, and i partially agree with you as it opens up a lot of new character concepts and builds for those who wishes it BUT there will probably be races who will outshine others too greatly and others nerfed like mountain dwarves since they gain +2 str +2 Con or how will races with innate spells work? Like High elf extra wizard cantrip, does that mean the casting ability will no longer be intelligence and it will depend on the main class (would be interesting)?
In the end i am kinda happy for the changes because my i love creating classes (that i will probably never play since i DM most of the time) and of course my list of Great Old ones warlock will increase A LOT (Yea i love Lovecrafts stuff a little too much).... Finally, My Goliath GOO tomelock will be a thing T_T
This may add a lot of complexity for my players and they like the current iteration because of simplicity. With exception to one who seems to not want to leave Artificer at all ever since its release and likes to min max.
Born under the watch of something from the furthest corners of the far realms.... It knows all.... it sees all... and it asks: "What is it that you want to see?"... and my answer is... ALL"
Of the +3, just say no more than 2 can go to any one stat. if you look at all the races, with one exception, no race can start with a score of more than 17 when you add racial bonuses (unless you do the manual role system). several races have +2 to a stat, and then +1 to one other stat. the exception is the changeling which gets +2 charisma and then +1 to any stat (which can be applied to charisma as well). not sure why they allowed the changeling to do that as it definitely goes against the norm.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Probably will do just that. As for why they can go up to +3 for changelings it probably to test out if it was actually broken or not and it seem that it might have not been all that power during the testing ? Or just s typo.
Born under the watch of something from the furthest corners of the far realms.... It knows all.... it sees all... and it asks: "What is it that you want to see?"... and my answer is... ALL"
Before the article and for about a year now my group with the campaigns we play, we did away with the set racial ability modifiers. What we did to show individuality was since majority of all racial adjustments was +2 to one stat and +1 to another was just allow the player a +2 to one ability of choice and a +1 to another. Example is a Hill Dwarf wizard; normally +2 con, +1 wisdom. We just allow the player to pick +2 to one ability and a +1 to another.
This has made it to where the racial traits is what makes people determine what race to play for us. It has worked well.