Quote from: jhkim on January 31, 2021, 10:48:39 PM

Quote from: TJS on January 31, 2021, 10:16:34 PM

Quote from: Pat on January 31, 2021, 05:08:07 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 31, 2021, 03:38:16 PM
I should probably add (E) as another choice in my original post of race/class picks, where race is selected first and stats are random in order, so there's no optimizing of race to class.

Actually, it occurs to me that with this approach will most likely result in a lot *more* half-orc wizards than the later edition approach. In AD&D 1st edition, half-orcs had +1 Str, +1 Con, and -2 Cha. If the player picks race and then rolls attributes in order, there's a 45% chance that a half-orc character will have a higher Intelligence than Strength. This method is likely to lead to a lot more half-orc wizards than Method V which is used by default in 3E/4E/5E where attribute rolls are assigned.

That's a good point. A lot of people have commented that +1/-1 or +2/-2 doesn't amount to a lot, and if the distribution is treated as representative of the population, there really isn't a huge difference between halflings and humans. Their strengths vary much less than real life differences between the sexes, for instance. But the attribute bonuses are primarily aimed at PCs, and when player behavior is considered, there's a huge difference. If you're creating a fighter, you go with the half-orc not the halfling. Not just most of the time, but almost all the time. The distribution of racial ability scores among PCs is much more tightly constrained that suggested by a naive assessment of the probabilities.

Do you?  I had a halfling barbarian in a game not long ago.  The PC was absolutely fine and never really felt inneffectve.

First of all, Pat did specify Fighter. Barbarians get more out of Dex than Fighters do, because of the "Unarmored Defense" feature, so halfing is a closer fit. And whether it's "most of the time" vs "almost all the time" is subjective and depends a lot on how much the players are into mini-maxing.

Quibbling aside, the idea is that if everyone had to first chose halfling and then rolled their stats in order, there would be more of a variety of classes among halfling characters. Since halfling get +2 Dex, then if the player can arrange attribute rolls, they will get much more out of that by choosing high Dex and/or picking a class that gets the most out of Dex. That strongly encourages system-minded players to focus on Dex. But if the system is roll attributes in order, they're likely to get a middling or low roll for Dex even with the +2.

Do you disagree with that more general point?

I believe that if you're rolling and then assigning scores in order then you're wasting your time rolling because it's still essentially point buy.

You're just running around in a circle to end up in the same place you started.

Quote from: TJS on February 01, 2021, 02:47:44 AM
I believe that if you're rolling and then assigning scores in order then you're wasting your time rolling because it's still essentially point buy.

One variation I've used that works well is 3d6 (or 4d6 best) 3 in order, then swap any two. That removes most of the frustration of players who really want to play a fighter or magic-user, because they can always put their best score in the ability of their choice. But they can't chose the specific scores, the long tail of less important attributes is random, and they might end up with an unexpected bad score. In other words, they can choose their characters prime focus, while still having the serendipitous feel of random generation.

Quote from: Pat on February 01, 2021, 08:48:51 AM

Quote from: TJS on February 01, 2021, 02:47:44 AM
I believe that if you're rolling and then assigning scores in order then you're wasting your time rolling because it's still essentially point buy.

One variation I've used that works well is 3d6 (or 4d6 best) 3 in order, then swap any two. That removes most of the frustration of players who really want to play a fighter or magic-user, because they can always put their best score in the ability of their choice. But they can't chose the specific scores, the long tail of less important attributes is random, and they might end up with an unexpected bad score. In other words, they can choose their characters prime focus, while still having the serendipitous feel of random generation.

I do this too, for the same reason.  I made it the default generation method for primary PCs in my own design. 

What I didn't expect to happen as much as it does is that sometimes the player doesn't swap the highest number into the primary ability score. If the primary is good enough and the swap will address something secondary but still important, it becomes an interesting decision for the player.  Consider a character in early D&D that really wants a fighter and gets, say, 8 Str, 16 Dex, and 13 Int.  The Str/Int swap looks attractive, even without all kinds of ways to turn Dex into the attack stat.

There is also a "companion" generation process that follows the primary PC generation process, except the players have fewer choices, including no ability score swap.  The companion is not always available and is the backup character for the player if the primary PC dies. There's really not that much difference in the process, but a few choices in the PC generation heightens the feel that the player is more in control by comparison.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 01, 2021, 10:03:24 AM
I do this too, for the same reason.  I made it the default generation method for primary PCs in my own design. 

What I didn't expect to happen as much as it does is that sometimes the player doesn't swap the highest number into the primary ability score. If the primary is good enough and the swap will address something secondary but still important, it becomes an interesting decision for the player.  Consider a character in early D&D that really wants a fighter and gets, say, 8 Str, 16 Dex, and 13 Int.  The Str/Int swap looks attractive, even without all kinds of ways to turn Dex into the attack stat.

There's also an interesting dynamic with the worst score. For a fighter, sometimes shifting a 7 out of Con is more important than putting a 15 into Str, for instance. It creates more organic feeling characters -- in fact, I think that was the name they used for the method in 3.X. The characters are optimized, but not perfectly optimal.

I'm almost sold on the no racial modifiers, put a +2 and +1 wherever you want system, the only issue I have is where it interacts with the standard array so that every character looks about the same come level 8 or so. You've had at least two stat-ups by that time which means you can be at or approaching 20 in your main attribute.

Which means all characters play about the same mechanics wise, a half-orc wizard is indistinguishable from an elf except for the tusks and the pointy ears.

With randomly rolled stats the problem goes away quite neatly.

I think the issue comes from the order people do things. We used to roll stats and see what we could be, now we decide what we want to be and arrange the stats accordingly which frequently leads to effective, dull, repetitive characters.

Didn't one game or another invent a mechanic where instead of the races being a single template, you selected from a pool of benefits and drawbacks that were flavorful for that race?

Or, I don't know, aren't there race-specific archetypes/kits/whatever to make the same class feel different depending on what race you play?

Like, I don't expect an orc wizard to play the same way as an elf wizard as a human wizard ad nauseum.

Regarding random-roll in general:  I think the combination of attribute selection and class-based inherently results in a lot of sameness. In pure point-buy skill-based systems, there is often more variety in characters than in class-based (at a cost of slower and more complicated chargen). When I'm doing pure random-roll (like in Harnmaster), if I'm going to add choice, I prefer to roll three complete sets and then pick which one I prefer - rather than re-arranging. That also has a clear simulationist meaning - each is a real character, and I'm picking which one I want to play.

Quote from: Altheus on February 01, 2021, 10:59:04 AM
I'm almost sold on the no racial modifiers, put a +2 and +1 wherever you want system, the only issue I have is where it interacts with the standard array so that every character looks about the same come level 8 or so. You've had at least two stat-ups by that time which means you can be at or approaching 20 in your main attribute.

Which means all characters play about the same mechanics wise, a half-orc wizard is indistinguishable from an elf except for the tusks and the pointy ears.

If you want a half-orc wizard to be mechanically distinct from an elf wizard, I think it's better to have unique racial abilities - like Relentless Endurance and Fey Ancestry. The ability score modifiers do very little for this. Does it really matter that the half-orc wizard is Str 10 Dex 12 while the elf wizard is Str 8 Dex 14? That seems pretty hard to notice at all.

Also, with either point-buy or arrange-rolls, I think the fixed attribute mods means more sameness of characters overall -- you get more elven or halfling Rogue, more gnome wizards, and so forth -- and less of the atypical combos. If the goal is more variety of characters overall, I think supporting atypical combos adds more variety.

Quote from: Altheus on February 01, 2021, 10:59:04 AM
I think the issue comes from the order people do things. We used to roll stats and see what we could be, now we decide what we want to be and arrange the stats accordingly which frequently leads to effective, dull, repetitive characters.

Arranging ability scores has been around ever since the DMG first came out in 1979 and gave alternate rolling methods (Methods I to V), and even if it wasn't the default, it was very common. I know in my school groups in the 1980s, arranging rolls was standard. I think it's pretty clear that most D&D players prefer more choice over their character, rather than just roll-in-order and accept the results.

But random-roll isn't the only way to get variety. I think the real problem is that the point-buy choices are such that only a few selections are clearly optimal over others -- like only a particular attribute distributions, and only certain race/class combos. There are ways to make things more balanced, so that more variety of choices are interesting to players.

Really good inherent abilities would be better than ability score adjustments - but the problem right now is that they're secondary additions to the main acts.  Just taking away the ability scores leaves a hole in the design.

I think a lot of the issue with off class race picks is not so much the ability score (unless you're overly fixated on it) but that you gain nothing for the tradeoff.  This frustration will continue.  A half-orc wizard will get something out of Relentless Endurance, but it's not anything they really want (As they want to stay out of melee combat as much as possible), and they will get nothing at all out of Savage Attacks.)  In my experience, the players who fixate the most on having the right optimal combination are often more bothered and frustated by the features they can't use.

Will it become less restrictive?  Yes.  But the last 20 years have shown the process of these issues becoming less restrictive.  A half-orc wizard has become far less restrictive than it was when they had an intelligence penalty in 3e or in 4e when ability score increases were far more important, but people still speak as if they are completely unviable.  (My first experience of the overpowered wizard in 3e that completely broke the game - that was a Half-Orc wizard.)

It is no doubt possible to come up with non ASI abilties that are much more widely applicable but this requires a complete rethink of their approach to races both mechanically and fictionally.  (I'm also sceptical that WOTC has either the design chops to do this or the processes in play to make changes of this kind - they're 'playtesting' process is one that inherently reinforces a certain conservatism of approach').

QuoteThey mean to destroy D&D as a game with their race war. It becomes smart Orcs, strong Goblins, and charismatic Drow.

Weren't Drows like always full of wicked and seductive Charisma? (I must say I deeply hate Charisma attribute as "humans distrust you - take -2 to Charisma".)

QuoteI should probably add (E) as another choice in my original post of race/class picks, where race is selected first and stats are random in order, so there's no optimizing of race to class.

Actually, it occurs to me that with this approach will most likely result in a lot *more* half-orc wizards than the later edition approach. In AD&D 1st edition, half-orcs had +1 Str, +1 Con, and -2 Cha. If the player picks race and then rolls attributes in order, there's a 45% chance that a half-orc character will have a higher Intelligence than Strength. This method is likely to lead to a lot more half-orc wizards than Method V which is used by default in 3E/4E/5E where attribute rolls are assigned.

As an aside, I forgot until now that the -2 Intelligence for half-orcs was something that was introduced in 3rd edition, and wasn't a part of original AD&D. Then it was taken back out for 5th edition.

Even with Int penalty, chances for smarter than stronger HO are not insignificant.
I like this method very much.

QuoteI think you have contradictory goals here. On the one hand, you claim you hate the behavior of character build optimization. On the other hand, you want player choices in creation to make a difference in character power. If players are going to lose out based on their choices in character creation, then that's naturally going to encourage more optimization.

I think tactical player choices should begin after game start - not in character creation.

Way of balance is a rocky and trecherous ones. There is optimisation, there is powergaming, there is munchkinism.
For me rolling randomly INT 15 STR 9 Half-orc and making him wizard is optimisation - but also sort of valid career choice from character perspective.
How you were born is not a choice - what career you have chosen I'd say is valid character choice in character creation. Not always ofc - this is D&D with heroic classes, for let's say Warhammer - rolling random profession and stats not fitting this profession is quite fine considering social dynamics partially emulated here, and leads to good storytelling possibilities.

QuoteIf you're creating a fighter, you go with the half-orc not the halfling. Not just most of the time, but almost all the time. The distribution of racial ability scores among PCs is much more tightly constrained that suggested by a naive assessment of the probabilities.

And rolling in order after choosing race is an answer for this abomination

QuoteI believe that if you're rolling and then assigning scores in order then you're wasting your time rolling because it's still essentially point buy.

You're just running around in a circle to end up in the same place you started.

To some degree yes indeed, but of course you can get lucky or unlucky with rolls beyond diversity you'd get from point buy.

QuoteRegarding random-roll in general:  I think the combination of attribute selection and class-based inherently results in a lot of sameness. In pure point-buy skill-based systems, there is often more variety in characters than in class-based (at a cost of slower and more complicated chargen). When I'm doing pure random-roll (like in Harnmaster), if I'm going to add choice, I prefer to roll three complete sets and then pick which one I prefer - rather than re-arranging. That also has a clear simulationist meaning - each is a real character, and I'm picking which one I want to play.

That's very cool idea. (Especially if other two land in big pool of spare character in case any of chosen ones dies

QuoteAlso, with either point-buy or arrange-rolls, I think the fixed attribute mods means more sameness of characters overall -- you get more elven or halfling Rogue, more gnome wizards, and so forth -- and less of the atypical combos. If the goal is more variety of characters overall, I think supporting atypical combos adds more variety.

I generally agree, yes.

QuoteThere are ways to make things more balanced, so that more variety of choices are interesting to players.

But then as noticed, sameness of choices becomes a problem.

Quote from: TJS on February 01, 2021, 04:57:42 PM
I think a lot of the issue with off class race picks is not so much the ability score (unless you're overly fixated on it) but that you gain nothing for the tradeoff.  This frustration will continue.  A half-orc wizard will get something out of Relentless Endurance, but it's not anything they really want (As they want to stay out of melee combat as much as possible), and they will get nothing at all out of Savage Attacks.)  In my experience, the players who fixate the most on having the right optimal combination are often more bothered and frustated by the features they can't use.

That's one advantage of race as class. You don't have to come up with some theoretical orc racial ability that's equally good for all classes. Instead, you can have orc druids and orc gedriht who express the nature of their race in different ways.

Quote from: Pat on February 01, 2021, 07:56:15 PM

Quote from: TJS on February 01, 2021, 04:57:42 PM
I think a lot of the issue with off class race picks is not so much the ability score (unless you're overly fixated on it) but that you gain nothing for the tradeoff.  This frustration will continue.  A half-orc wizard will get something out of Relentless Endurance, but it's not anything they really want (As they want to stay out of melee combat as much as possible), and they will get nothing at all out of Savage Attacks.)  In my experience, the players who fixate the most on having the right optimal combination are often more bothered and frustated by the features they can't use.

That's one advantage of race as class. You don't have to come up with some theoretical orc racial ability that's equally good for all classes. Instead, you can have orc druids and orc gedriht who express the nature of their race in different ways.

What games have multiple classes per race like this, though? As far as I know, there are vanishingly few examples. It seems like it's huge burden on game design to come up a set of varying classes for each race - especially that there is likely to be huge overlap. I think it would be easier to develop classes independently, and then have restrictions based on setting. ("In this setting, only half-orcs can be barbarians." or at least "Only half-orcs can be Beast Path barbarians.")

Also, I think Relentless Endurance can be quite useful for wizards. In my experience, wizards are often the first to be dropped - despite efforts of the others to shield them. I often put a decent stat in Con for wizards, because they're likely targets especially of ambush and ranged attacks.

Quote from: jhkim on February 01, 2021, 08:08:09 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 01, 2021, 07:56:15 PM

Quote from: TJS on February 01, 2021, 04:57:42 PM
I think a lot of the issue with off class race picks is not so much the ability score (unless you're overly fixated on it) but that you gain nothing for the tradeoff.  This frustration will continue.  A half-orc wizard will get something out of Relentless Endurance, but it's not anything they really want (As they want to stay out of melee combat as much as possible), and they will get nothing at all out of Savage Attacks.)  In my experience, the players who fixate the most on having the right optimal combination are often more bothered and frustated by the features they can't use.

That's one advantage of race as class. You don't have to come up with some theoretical orc racial ability that's equally good for all classes. Instead, you can have orc druids and orc gedriht who express the nature of their race in different ways.

What games have multiple classes per race like this, though? As far as I know, there are vanishingly few examples.

You have to make your own. It's not really that hard, in B/X.

So.

What if you ran a "D&D 6e" game?

• roll 1d8+10 for stats and place where you want
• It's Bio-Diverse, so choose two racial abilities from ANY "race/species"
• it's Classless, so choose any three abilities from ANY of the 5e Classes
• It's Culturally-diverse, so take any two Background traits/feats
• You need coin: roll 5d20 x 100 for starting gold (so Martials can get good armor & everyone can maybe get a mount)
• It's Spell Points (INT or WIS in points): access to ALL level-appropriate spells. Divines must pray, Arcanes must cast (verbal & gestures)
• Short Rest (around an hour) = +1d4 HP & Spell Points regained. Long Rest (closer to eight hours) = +1d10 HP & Spell Points regained

Whys nots?

Race and class only really seems to have a purpose if it keeping the races focused on one thing is to meet the goal of humanocentrism and have the races basically be reasonably rare and unique setting wise.

It justs seems overly redundant to have Dwarf Fighters, and Dwarf Clerics and Dwarf Thieves all as separate classes.

It's not that you couldn't have more than one class as race for a single race, but they should ideally be really clear and very distinct setting archetypes.

Quote from: TJS on February 01, 2021, 08:42:05 PM
Race and class only really seems to have a purpose if it keeping the races focused on one thing is to meet the goal of humanocentrism and have the races basically be reasonably rare and unique setting wise.

It justs seems overly redundant to have Dwarf Fighters, and Dwarf Clerics and Dwarf Thieves all as separate classes.

It's not that you couldn't have more than one class as race for a single race, but they should ideally be really clear and very distinct setting archetypes.

Yeah, but "Race" is a mutable container with 6e: it's what you make it. So smart, Culturally-diverse Orcs. Dumb, culturally-bankrupt Elves. Kobold spell-casters wielding Great swords. Furry Rangers with Druidic power.

6e isn't limited by anything. But .... would it work?

Call this my WotC Pre-Playtest.