Just a random thought on how I think this should work.  In my games, we do 4d6, drop the lowest, down the line, so there's less potential to game the system.  Your racial ability scores and penalties work as follows.

• If your ability score is 11 or less, racial bonuses to the ability score provide a +3 bonus (rather than +2).
• If your ability score is 17 or higher, racial bonuses to the ability score provide a +1 bonus (rather than +2).
• If your ability score is 13 or less, racial penalties to the ability score provide a apply a -1 penalty (rather than -2).
• Humans may or may not get a second +1 to apply to another ability score of their choosing.  This would ignore the above rules and be a flat +1.  Haven't decided yet.

Purpose of this is to help stabilize power levels between characters somewhat while encouraging them to play "non-optimal" races and classes.  (Gnome fighters and dwarven sorcerers are never going to be great, but they could be less bad.)

Quote from: B.T.;515570Just a random thought on how I think this should work.  In my games, we do 4d6, drop the lowest, down the line, so there's less potential to game the system.  Your racial ability scores and penalties work as follows.

• If your ability score is 11 or less, racial bonuses to the ability score provide a +3 bonus (rather than +2).
• If your ability score is 17 or higher, racial bonuses to the ability score provide a +1 bonus (rather than +2).
• If your ability score is 13 or less, racial penalties to the ability score provide a apply a -1 penalty (rather than -2).
• Humans may or may not get a second +1 to apply to another ability score of their choosing.  This would ignore the above rules and be a flat +1.  Haven't decided yet.

Purpose of this is to help stabilize power levels between characters somewhat while encouraging them to play "non-optimal" races and classes.  (Gnome fighters and dwarven sorcerers are never going to be great, but they could be less bad.)

Sounds like a plan. I like it.

I expected more shock and outrage.

Sorry man, mine are in short supply these days. I'll try and do it better next time, I swear.

But honestly, I don't think it's such a bad idea. Makes modifiers more relevant.

But what do you do when a modifier is given as +4 rather than +2? This does happen to some races (can't recall which, though certainly none of the usual PHB set).

Quote from: The Butcher;515779Sorry man, mine are in short supply these days. I'll try and do it better next time, I swear.

But honestly, I don't think it's such a bad idea. Makes modifiers more relevant.

But what do you do when a modifier is given as +4 rather than +2? This does happen to some races (can't recall which, though certainly none of the usual PHB set).

Treat it as two +2 modifiers, rather than one +4 modifier?

It sounds alright to me, but I'm not a Pathfinder player. I prefer to decouple race names and racial abilities from each other (So, if I've got a human who grew up living with elfs and doing elfy things, I'd let them pick race "human" and racial ability set "elf", frex; now there's no such thing as a non-optimal race combo), but that might not work for you, so I'm not recommending it or getting outraged about how your game works.

Why not get rid of racial modifiers? If you think that dwarfs should be sturdy, make a sturdy character.

Racial modifiers have their use, when players roll for their ability scores in order. In that case they are the only way to modify scores. But if there are other ways to influence your scores, racial modifiers are at best redundant.

Quote from: The Butcher;515779But what do you do when a modifier is given as +4 rather than +2? This does happen to some races (can't recall which, though certainly none of the usual PHB set).

In all honesty, I would suggest against allowing those races since they're probably not very well-balanced to begin with.  Orcs, for instance, are terrible (+4 Strength, –2 Intelligence, –2 Wisdom, –2 Charisma) whereas goblins are pretty damn strong (–2 Strength, +4 Dexterity, –2 Charisma).  All things considered, I would probably turn the +4 to a +5/+3 depending on the stat...or I'd just rewrite the races to a more balanced +2/+2/-2 combination.

Quote from: 1of3;515813Why not get rid of racial modifiers? If you think that dwarfs should be sturdy, make a sturdy character.

Racial modifiers have their use, when players roll for their ability scores in order. In that case they are the only way to modify scores. But if there are other ways to influence your scores, racial modifiers are at best redundant.

It's a 3e thing.  Getting rid of them would involve redoing a significant portion of the game.

QuoteIt's a 3e thing. Getting rid of them would involve redoing a significant portion of the game.

It is? Please explain. I'd just remove them from any standard race. Maybe that would have consequences that escape me.

So I'm thinking to myself and I says to myself, I says,  "One of the problems in 3e is how your stats impact character ability."  It's a mess, a damn mess when a newbie fighter with 18 Strength has the same attack bonus as a fourth-level fighter with 10 Strength.  It ain't right and it ain't fair and it messes up the game's math.  But I think that people have grown accustomed to the 3e metjhod of handling stats, and I think that they want a mechanical differentiation between characters.  Since this ties into stat bonuses, I figured I would start the discussion here.

My suggestion: add half your ability modified to saving throws, attack rolls, and save DCs but add your full ability modifier to damage and skill checks.  What are your thoughts?