For random character generation and racial modifiers, there is yet another way to do it:  Every player rolls their random stats, then they only pick the races they qualify for.  Might be something similar to how the AD&D paladins and rangers were restricted to particular stats.  Nothing says you have to do that only on the high end either.  Roll a 17 or 18 Str, you can't play a hobbit. 

Again, I think what works and why it works for random character generation is a different thing than using point buy or something approximating it.  I never found, for example, the racial templates in Fantasy Hero to be terribly useful.  It was easier to merely set the agreement on what made a good elf or hobbit or whatever and let the players model within that agreement. 

I also like the Dragon Quest approach, where the player's stats are a mix of random and point buy.  Your total points and maximum stats are determined randomly, then you get to buy within those limits.  You must fully assign your stats before rolling for race.  Race is you can be human for free.  Or you can try to roll for up to 3 other races, with the highest chances being in the 25% to 30% range.  If you succeed on one of those rolls, you take some pretty draconian racial adjustment.  For example, stats normally run in the 5 to 25 range, with most centered near 15.  A hobbit gets a -6 to strength.  It's an interesting mix of choice, gambling, and living with how the gambles play out.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 29, 2021, 06:10:50 PM

QuoteBut the more I think about it, I think addressing this by making the character weak is passive aggressive game design. "I'm fine with you playing a half-orc wizard, really. You just get a weaker character." If someone doesn't want such characters, it's better to just disallow them.

I disagree. This statistics is meant to reflect on species as whole. And give us notion - considering each person is 3d6 rolled in order (even if heroes get leeway) what half-orc society will look like.
Also in random attribute role it reflects it's harder to be born as half-orc with talent to wizardry compared to elf with talent to wizardry. That's it. If you have point buy - you can overcome it anyway making 16 Int half-orc which is more than fine for a 1st level wizard. The point is not to make half-orc wizards impossible, it's to make them less likely both among society and players. And it does exactly this - either by random rolls, or by optimisers choosing elves.

QuoteI disagree. Rather than trying to enforce the flavor of the races by the rules, you can explicitly put that job in the hands of the GM and players. That may be a better choice, especially if the rules do a piss-poor job of it.

Rules are making good job with it - especially if you roll randomly as D&D was born to be played.

QuoteFor example, hobbits are usually shy and sneaky - but maybe in one Middle Earth game, I decide to play Bullroarer Took, an exceptional hobbit who goes for mounted combat. Maybe the GM agrees that it's cool, even though it's unusual for hobbits.

Sure. And Bullroarer Took will still has -2 to Strenght which tbh won't stop him from being very good PF cavalier.

QuotePerhaps that's a highly unusual goliath, but the character doesn't have to be penalized any more than any other player choosing an unusual background for their PC.

Only if you consider it a penalty, that smartest goliaths are not as smart as smartest elves.

QuoteI don't say any of this with any kind of real world political agenda in mind regarding race or anything like that, I just think it might be more fun not to be penalized for certain character design choices. I could even apply that thought to other kinds of games, like what if I wanted a Malkavian with Potence but I have to pay more experience points to get it than a Brujah does. The longer I am in the hobby, the more I think that those atypical choices shouldn't be penalized and that in setting statistical trends shouldn't necessarily confine character design.

Oh, dear, while in D&D I can agree it's penalty of some form as it goes down from basic level to basic level -2, how on Earth is this a penalty.
It's not. Not at all. Similarily with skills and talents in Warhammer.
It's double-price in XP for skill/talent or for dots in Vampire that's default. That is common price in world.
You just get three Disciplines for each clan for which you have bonus to learn them and they are cheaper. Just like in Warhammer - if you're shopkeeper want to advance knife-throwing you pay normal price, if he wants to advance accounting he pays half - because that's easier for him as it's his full-time job.

Allowing everyone to have everything takes out any meaning from choosing races/backgrounds/classes/clans/sects or whatever.
And this choice have to matter.

QuoteI kinda feel like that makes them less cool,

Yes. Everyone is cool in something and less cool in something else. Everything being fun and cool is just absolutely absolutely boring from mechanic and setting perspective.

Greetings!

Excellent commentary, Woodpecker! I agree entirely. Having different sets of racial ability modifiers--and or penalties--strongly reinforces the representative of the racial membership. At a glance, such distinctions are very useful when looking at player characters or NPC's. Such attribute profiles provide the foundation that distinguishes each race from another.

Conversely, getting rid of such racial profiles and allowing player characters to simply assign whatever attributes they desire--and also while having no penalties what so ever--essentially makes all of the races into the same bowl of goo. If every race must have the same equality in everything, and no penalties, what is the point of even having races beyond humans? They become simply humans with different masks on.

That is not the kind of game design that interests me in the slightest.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 29, 2021, 08:35:14 PM
I'm certain someone already hit this, but, SJWs are all about cultural diversity behaving true meaning in a sociol-economic sense. They translate it to being "Orcs, as black people, are just as, if not more, capable than normal white humans because OBVIOUSLY you can't play a black human in D&D.

So, according to the mouth-breathing SJW populace, the way to improve racial balance is to remove racial mods that were designed to balance how Orcs are stronger and Kobolds were sneakier.

Pure. 100%. Bullshit. They want their cake and eat it too.

I'll wait for the Adventure League posts on Reddit where the Kobold Paladin with 17 Strength pisses off the group by dominating combat. Or how the Orc Wizard dominates everything with high Strength and Spellcasting.

Greetings!

So true, Theory of Games! I agree, it is all some bullshit for sure.

The whole "Orcs are black people!" is such racist bullshit. All of this stuff grinds my teeth nine ways to Sunday. I have black friends that play, as well as in past gaming groups and campaigns. If they so chose, and they often did--to play a black human, they could easily do so. Imagine that? All humans have the same attributes in the game rules. None of them have ever noticed or maintained that there was somehow "Racism" in the game rules, or the various races. And, well, I don't recall any gamer or friend of whatever colour come to the idea that "Orcs are black people!" Everyone sees them as what they are--savage, warlike, and typically tribal monstrous humanoids.

And, amazingly enough, in my campaigns I have different ethnic groups of monstrous Orcs--some are black skinned, which live in hot, blasted wastelands and harsh mountains; Then, there are white coloured Orcs which live in cold, alpine-like forest regions and unforgiving Taiga; Then, there are two larger ethnic groups of Orcs--one branch having cement gray colouring, and the second branch having a lime green colouration. All of them have monstrous features and attributes, and while Orcs in general possess some superficial similarities culturally and socially with Humans--they are inhuman and savage monsters, and no one in their right mind would suggest they are stand-ins for Humans. Such an idea that "Orcs are black people!" is absolute nonsense.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Can we not have the political discussion here, and take it up in the other thread? We previously tried a "(no politics)" tag on some threads to avoid it spreading everywhere.

My option (D) isn't some new politically-correct approach - lots of games have worked like this for decades, like Savage Worlds as well as GURPS and HERO as I mentioned. I've seen lots of aliens and fantasy races in these systems. Not saying that people should necessarily like it, but it's weird to speak about option (D) as if it's some wacky new thing never before used in RPGs.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 29, 2021, 06:10:50 PM

Quote from: jhkimBut the more I think about it, I think addressing this by making the character weak is passive aggressive game design. "I'm fine with you playing a half-orc wizard, really. You just get a weaker character." If someone doesn't want such characters, it's better to just disallow them.

I disagree. This statistics is meant to reflect on species as whole. And give us notion - considering each person is 3d6 rolled in order (even if heroes get leeway) what half-orc society will look like. Also in random attribute role it reflects it's harder to be born as half-orc with talent to wizardry compared to elf with talent to wizardry. That's it.  If you have point buy - you can overcome it anyway making 16 Int half-orc which is more than fine for a 1st level wizard. The point is not to make half-orc wizards impossible, it's to make them less likely both among society and players. And it does exactly this - either by random rolls, or by optimisers choosing elves.

You're conflating two things here:

(1) making half-orc wizards uncommon among game-world society and NPCs
(2) making half-orc wizards uncommon among PCs

These aren't the same thing. In D&D, PCs have basically never been representative of broad society. If 1 in 4 of a typical party are wizards, would you want society where 25% of everyone are wizards? Conversely, if there's only one wizard in a town of 200, would you only want 0.5% of party members to be a wizard? I don't think it's actually a useful goal to make PC professions have the same proportions as NPCs.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 29, 2021, 06:10:50 PM
Allowing everyone to have everything takes out any meaning from choosing races/backgrounds/classes/clans/sects or whatever.
And this choice have to matter.

In practice, in D&D, I've seen multiple players who genuinely forgot their own character race in play. The reason was because they only chose that race because it optimized their class build, and they treated race like it was just a bag of points for build.

I feel like your approach of emphasizing points and saying "only attribute optimization matters" is responsible for making race a *less* interesting choice.

I prefer if players choose a race and background based more on how they want to role-play. I think it makes the choice more interesting and meaningful.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not criticizing D&D here. I'm criticizing the "optimized build" approach to character creation, where the only thing that matters about being an elf is the stat adjustments you get to optimize your class build. I'd prefer to see less of that in my D&D games.

I think it is better to have an option you might not use, than to not have an option that you might want, so I'd er on the side of the 3e approach but would still say that most members of a given race prefer x or y class, allowing for potential exceptions.

ETA

yes you there above me you mention players treating race as a package of points, that was in my experience the origin point of most complaints about 3e, a computer logic magic the gathering mindset approach, the approach itself being largely responsible for the complaints and said complaints being largely absent from those who did not approach it with that mindset.

I'd rethink character creation entirely.

You're never going to get away from some version of this issue as long as you have a point buy system AND ability scores are as important as they are.

And even if you want to maximise player choice you can still probably find a way around it.

Really we're still living with the fact that 3E redesigned D&D at the point in time in which class and level based systems were considered old pretty old hat and brought in a lot of elements that somewhat undermined the importance of class.  (Or rather took the elements that were already there and greatly increased their importance.)

Not all ability scores are of equal importance, and some of them are of very little importance for some classes.

And you're never going to stop optimisation unless character creation is random. 

Take away ability score increases and some races are still better suited than other classes.  Sure the difference will be smaller - but the difference is already small - the problem is pyschological.

I remember when 3e first came out we were all "awesome now we can play Halfling Paladins and Half-Orc Wizards."  And then 4E got rid of penalties to ability scores and people said "awesome now we can play Halfling Paladins and Half-Orc Wizards" and now 5e gets rid of bonuses and people say "awesome now..." well you get the picture.

No doubt in 6e they'll get ride of the Elven Accuracy feat and people will go "Awesome, finally rogue archers don't need to be elves".

QuoteFor random character generation and racial modifiers, there is yet another way to do it:  Every player rolls their random stats, then they only pick the races they qualify for.  Might be something similar to how the AD&D paladins and rangers were restricted to particular stats.  Nothing says you have to do that only on the high end either.  Roll a 17 or 18 Str, you can't play a hobbit.

That's also an option though it discards chances for some races to have cap above 18 - which makes best humans as good in any attribute as best members of other races.
Then as simulationist I ultimately want to have biological species (nature), social background (nurture) and professional career choices as separate elements.

And ultimately I just like idea of halfling paladins (hey Mazzy), orc wizards, and dwarven sorcerers (I really really hate anti-magical dwarf stereotype).

QuoteConversely, getting rid of such racial profiles and allowing player characters to simply assign whatever attributes they desire--and also while having no penalties what so ever--essentially makes all of the races into the same bowl of goo. If every race must have the same equality in everything, and no penalties, what is the point of even having races beyond humans? They become simply humans with different masks on.

I definitely agree. More stuff differentiating non-humans from humans the better.

QuoteYou're conflating two things here:

(1) making half-orc wizards uncommon among game-world society and NPCs
(2) making half-orc wizards uncommon among PCs

These aren't the same thing. In D&D, PCs have basically never been representative of broad society. If 1 in 4 of a typical party are wizards, would you want society where 25% of everyone are wizards? Conversely, if there's only one wizard in a town of 200, would you only want 0.5% of party members to be a wizard? I don't think it's actually a useful goal to make PC professions have the same proportions as NPCs.

Well in times were attributes were by default rolled in order and you had to have 14 Int to even qualify as wizard, I guess - yeah there was much less wizards in average party.
But ultimately - that depends on edition - edition 2 and especially 3 were big on how PC and NPC are the same, and how PC's of level 1-5 are nothing special in their worlds, in this game IIRC PC's get in basic rules attribute bonus 4d6 drop lowest to fit - that they are exceptionally talented by birth to even survive levelling up to heroics.
In older and newer games they are build from the different rules, and are more special from the start. So I'd say more or less in 3.0 in 2.0 heroes were more or less at level 1 representatives of society maybe bit better.

And there is another element - world-centrism of old D&D vs character/story centrism of new one.
In old D&D you are dropped in cruel unforgiving world and have to survive and fluorish. No rights to make special characters really.

QuoteIn practice, in D&D, I've seen multiple players who genuinely forgot their own character race in play. The reason was because they only chose that race because it optimized their class build, and they treated race like it was just a bag of points for build.

That's why you pick race first, and then roll in order my friend. And banish optimisers to uranium mines, like uncle Joe did with trockyist.

QuoteEDIT: To be clear, I'm not criticizing D&D here. I'm criticizing the "optimized build" approach to character creation, where the only thing that matters about being an elf is the stat adjustments you get to optimize your class build. I'd prefer to see less of that in my D&D games.

Well as I said - answer is to discourage builds. Randomness is great way to do it.
How-character-will-be-roleplayed is often better forged within first level of game, than meticulouslly preplaned - because oh, I dreamed about playing this half-orc alchemist that's mixed between Walter White and Saruman and speak with Hungarian accent. TBH such "narrative" optimisers are for me no better than "gamism" optimisers.

Next time you have idea for a campaign, sent players a mail and start it with NO PREPLANNED CHARACTER. SHUT OFF IMAGINATION NOW, OR SEEK ANOTHER CAMPAIGN. TIME FOR IMAGINATION WILL CAME AFTER ROLLS.

QuoteI think it is better to have an option you might not use, than to not have an option that you might want, so I'd er on the side of the 3e approach but would still say that most members of a given race prefer x or y class, allowing for potential exceptions.

Well 16 INT member of any race, even elf is quite an exceptional specimen. It's just half-orcs shall be such exception more rarely than elf.
Half-orc starting with 15 INT on 1st level is still perfectly fine wizard in 3,5

QuoteAnd you're never going to stop optimisation unless character creation is random.

Yes. Unfortunately.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 30, 2021, 07:42:25 AM

Quote from: jhkimYou're conflating two things here:

(1) making half-orc wizards uncommon among game-world society and NPCs
(2) making half-orc wizards uncommon among PCs

These aren't the same thing. In D&D, PCs have basically never been representative of broad society. If 1 in 4 of a typical party are wizards, would you want society where 25% of everyone are wizards? Conversely, if there's only one wizard in a town of 200, would you only want 0.5% of party members to be a wizard? I don't think it's actually a useful goal to make PC professions have the same proportions as NPCs.

Well in times were attributes were by default rolled in order and you had to have 14 Int to even qualify as wizard, I guess - yeah there was much less wizards in average party.
But ultimately - that depends on edition - edition 2 and especially 3 were big on how PC and NPC are the same, and how PC's of level 1-5 are nothing special in their worlds, in this game IIRC PC's get in basic rules attribute bonus 4d6 drop lowest to fit - that they are exceptionally talented by birth to even survive levelling up to heroics.
In older and newer games they are build from the different rules, and are more special from the start. So I'd say more or less in 3.0 in 2.0 heroes were more or less at level 1 representatives of society maybe bit better.

And there is another element - world-centrism of old D&D vs character/story centrism of new one.
In old D&D you are dropped in cruel unforgiving world and have to survive and fluorish. No rights to make special characters really.

In basically every edition of D&D, a magic user or wizard has been about 1 in 4 of the typical party. There has never been a requirement of 14 Int for a wizard. In 1E and 2E, the requirement was 9 Int, and in later editions that requirement was dropped. Plus, 3E and later never had roll attributes in order - it was always make six rolls and assign. In 1E and 2E, most NPCs were zero level -- while in 3E most NPCs had NPC classes like Commoner.

Look - if you prefer a character generation method where starting PCs come out as average representatives of society, then that's fine. I mentioned doing this in Harnmaster - roll for race, roll for sex, roll for social class, and then roll for attributes in order. In Harnmaster, wizard characters (Shek-Pvar) are less common - many parties don't have one, in my experience. Your D&D can absolutely do this - have only roll in order attribute generation, and a 14 Int requirement for wizards.

But claims like that 14 Int was always a thing -- that's projecting a false past.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 30, 2021, 07:42:25 AM

Quote from: jhkimEDIT: To be clear, I'm not criticizing D&D here. I'm criticizing the "optimized build" approach to character creation, where the only thing that matters about being an elf is the stat adjustments you get to optimize your class build. I'd prefer to see less of that in my D&D games.

Well as I said - answer is to discourage builds. Randomness is great way to do it.
How-character-will-be-roleplayed is often better forged within first level of game, than meticulouslly preplaned - because oh, I dreamed about playing this half-orc alchemist that's mixed between Walter White and Saruman and speak with Hungarian accent. TBH such "narrative" optimisers are for me no better than "gamism" optimisers.

Next time you have idea for a campaign, sent players a mail and start it with NO PREPLANNED CHARACTER. SHUT OFF IMAGINATION NOW, OR SEEK ANOTHER CAMPAIGN. TIME FOR IMAGINATION WILL CAME AFTER ROLLS.

Back in reply #49, you said you don't actually have much experience with pure random-roll in order. I'd encourage you to try it out more - I've had fun with it at times. But claiming it as the ONE TRUE WAY when you haven't actually used it much seems like jumping the gun. For me personally, I'm usually happy to play anything from a human fighter to an elven druid -- but I find a lot of players aren't like that. Give them a random character, and they won't necessarily like it that much. It's a matter of preference. What is more fun for *me* isn't necessarily more fun for other players.

As for how to deal with optimization...  In general, I don't have a problem with tactical play. After character creation, I often enjoy players who engage in tactical play. But I dislike running *character creation* as a tactical exercise. My usual solution is to assure players that whatever they choose, they'll come out with a character that is roughly equal in power to the others. If the system is flawed and an option comes out as overpowered, then I'll make a ruling to adjust it down. And if an option is underpowered, I'll adjust that character up.

QuoteIn basically every edition of D&D, a magic user or wizard has been about 1 in 4 of the typical party. There has never been a requirement of 14 Int for a wizard. In 1E and 2E, the requirement was 9 Int, and in later editions that requirement was dropped. Plus, 3E and later never had roll attributes in order - it was always make six rolls and assign. In 1E and 2E, most NPCs were zero level -- while in 3E most NPCs had NPC classes like Commoner.

Oh, I was mistaken about 2ed then. Well fine then. I thought I take this mistake from Baldur's Gate but no - it also has 9. (I had to mistake it with some other classes - dear lord 15 Cha for Druid).
As for D&D 3,5 - well technically most of NPCs should be like that - but ultimately from my experience with published material, most meaningful in any way were of PC classes even if they were not adventurers of any kind.

QuoteLook - if you prefer a character generation method where starting PCs come out as average representatives of society, then that's fine. I mentioned doing this in Harnmaster - roll for race, roll for sex, roll for social class, and then roll for attributes in order. In Harnmaster, wizard characters (Shek-Pvar) are less common - many parties don't have one, in my experience. Your D&D can absolutely do this - have only roll in order attribute generation, and a 14 Int requirement for wizards.

But claims like that 14 Int was always a thing -- that's projecting a false past.

Indeed, that's my mistake. I had to conflate it with minimal rational Inteligence score for wizard character in later games really.

QuoteBack in reply #49, you said you don't actually have much experience with pure random-roll in order. I'd encourage you to try it out more - I've had fun with it at times.

I will. As I said - I'm using it basically everywhere now - even in games that are clearly not meant to be random-rolled like Blades or Fading Suns.

QuoteBut claiming it as the ONE TRUE WAY when you haven't actually used it much seems like jumping the gun. For me personally, I'm usually happy to play anything from a human fighter to an elven druid -- but I find a lot of players aren't like that. Give them a random character, and they won't necessarily like it that much. It's a matter of preference. What is more fun for *me* isn't necessarily more fun for other players.

I do not claim it's ONE TRUE WAY, though considering how more and more games seems to prefer more volunarist and less random/hand of fate creation these days, I'm quite defensive about those elements that still makes choices unequal, more random, less the same. Superior modifiers of Warhammer elves, -2/+2 in D&D, different Disciplines as preferable for various clans - higher cost of being special snowflake, overall. I mean I think it's easier for DM to drop them if he wants to be more generous, than implement them in games that assumed from the get go - will of a player is absolute in terms of playable character.

QuoteAs for how to deal with optimization...  In general, I don't have a problem with tactical play. After character creation, I often enjoy players who engage in tactical play. But I dislike running *character creation* as a tactical exercise. My usual solution is to assure players that whatever they choose, they'll come out with a character that is roughly equal in power to the others. If the system is flawed and an option comes out as overpowered, then I'll make a ruling to adjust it down. And if an option is underpowered, I'll adjust that character up.

Well as I said - random roll eliminates at least a bit of optimisation problem.
About the other thing... I'd say I never was much for balance of PC's - though I agree GM should make everyone useful in a way. But then total equality of options - while optimisation and crazy builds from the get go is iffy, such equality seems also bit... pointless, taking any meaning from such choices really. Oh, well. Ultimately I think it's hard on equal PC level even with gap in atribbute scores to do character who can replace whole team, and need no help - to much options, powers, skills to cover, even if not everybody is direct combat beast.

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

Can I quote Amidala?

Padmé Amidala: "So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."

The OSR didn't appear out of thin air. It appeared because D&D became a different game. OSR is the focus. There has to be "true" D&D games to oppose WotC's nonsense.

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.

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.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 30, 2021, 05:46:36 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 30, 2021, 11:09:10 AMAs for how to deal with optimization...  In general, I don't have a problem with tactical play. After character creation, I often enjoy players who engage in tactical play. But I dislike running *character creation* as a tactical exercise. My usual solution is to assure players that whatever they choose, they'll come out with a character that is roughly equal in power to the others. If the system is flawed and an option comes out as overpowered, then I'll make a ruling to adjust it down. And if an option is underpowered, I'll adjust that character up.

I'd say I never was much for balance of PC's - though I agree GM should make everyone useful in a way. But then total equality of options - while optimisation and crazy builds from the get go is iffy, such equality seems also bit... pointless, taking any meaning from such choices really.

I 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.

Well, as stated previously; my general approach is a variation of D.

The default stat bonuses in my system are +1 to Stat A or Stat B and +1 to Stat C or Stat D. One of these is always either Strength or Reflexes, another is always a mental score (Intellect, Wits or Presence).

The Fighter class can use your choice of STR or REF for its primary stat (gaining other benefits as well from the choice), and your choice of one mental stat for it's secondary stat (which also provides extra benefits). Thus, every race can be an effective fighter if they choose to be... though each species will have its own preferred fighting style because of their stat bonuses.

Similarly, each magic class uses a different mental stat (gadgeteers and wizards use Intellect, mystics use Wits, and theurges use Presence). Each can also use any of the other stats as their secondary for the class (ex. Lore wizards use WIT, Social wizards use PRE, and War Wizards use STR or REF).

While the spellcasting classes do have differences in implements and supporting traits, they all have access to the spellcasting paths... so all the species can be some flavor of spellcaster.

And if you want to play against type, the penalties aren't THAT severe. By default players have a choice of three stat arrays; balanced (3, 2, 2, 1, 1, -1), strong (3, 3, 1, 1, 0, -1) and focused (4, 2, 1, 0, 0, -1). The species stat bumps go atop these.

While this does mean a 5 is possible, in practice, the increase in performance over a 4 is marginal and the cost to your defenses and breadth of skill performance generally aren't worth it. Worst case for a suboptimal species/class combo is going to be a 3 in your primary and stronger than typical other stats. Basically -5% from the presumed 4 in your primary and only -10% from the peak PC performance.

You'd have to deliberately gimp yourself to get results worse than that, even with a suboptimal combo (ex. a gnome who uses a strong rather than a swift fighting style) and the shortfall can be at least partially mitigated by things like superior quality weapons and certain talent picks.

Basically, it's nearly impossible to make a PC too gimped to play in my system by accident. Regardless of species, class, background or even attribute array chosen... as long as you put your best available score (be it a 3, 4 or 5) into your class primary and put your next best into a class secondary, you'll be able to meet the expected difficulty.

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.

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.

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?