Ability scores max out at twenty . . . So elves can be as strong as half orcs?

Let me start off saying that I REALLY like the idea of having ability score maximums. It will really help game balance.

That said, I don't think it makes sense that the strongest halfling is just as strong as the strongest human.

I think each race should have variable maximums.

 
Orcs were Elves twisted into mockeries easily manipulated by the Dark one.... why not give them -5 charisma and the same stats otherwise. They werent better at fighting than the ealves and were also archers. The hunch back stuff doesnt make you stronger.

Heh, Tolkein. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Then we run back into the issue of x race is best at y, and if you do y, but don't pick x you are gimping yourself.
I'm fine with all races having the same cap. Keeps it simple. Anyway, the days of halflings being particularly weak are gone. They are small, but strong little fellas.
Anyway, the days of halflings being particularly weak are gone.

Tell that to the idiotic weapon restrictions they get for small size.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Then we run back into the issue of x race is best at y, and if you do y, but don't pick x you are gimping yourself.



I don't see why this is a problem. Some races and classes have synergy. This makes sense to me.

If your goal is to play the best fighter, then sure, perhaps you want to play a half-orc and get +1 to your attack and damage rolls. But most people I know choose their race and class for thematic reasons, and racial differences matter for that. Otherwise the differences are just hollow trappings.
I'd be all for racial maximums and class minimums but too many people would become righteously indignant   and the devs would never live it down. 

Of course there's nothing stopping us fron borrowing a few rules from earlier editions to make the game more fitting our preferences as long as they fit without screwing up the delicate balence of the game. 

Maybe they won't try to get things so tight that a little class and race tweaking will destroy it. So far their track record in this regard is abysmal.  
Anyway, the days of halflings being particularly weak are gone.

Tell that to the idiotic weapon restrictions they get for small size.



So they can't use heavy weapons.  Pray tell, how is that any different from a human's inability to swing a bulldozer?
Then we run back into the issue of x race is best at y, and if you do y, but don't pick x you are gimping yourself.



I'm not talking about having HUGE variables here, just minor ones.

I just think it's a bit silly of a mental image to see the strongest halfing, who's what? A hundred or so pounds? Be statistically identical the strongest half-orc, who's 300 pounds, in an arm wrestling contest.

maybe have a 2-4 point (which ultimately ends up being a 1-2 point in most stat-lines) shift. Everything that I've read would indicate that this wouldn't 'gimp' a character choice, one would be very marginally better. That's what I love about the stat caps, just not what I like about all races/classes having the same exactly cap.

And in the end, if the entirety of your class revolved around a single +1 or +2 stat bonus determining whether or not they are gimped, you're playing a pretty boring game and/or class.




I don't like the ability caps. While it is good for balance, I feel that this edition is going down the same road as the 4th was going, and doing it worse. By trying to maximally balance out the game, they are making it bland and uninteresting. Its what has bothered me in 4e, and it bothers me now. It goes hand to hand with the linearity that was present in 4e, and it was the absolute worst aspect of it. As someone said on PA forums "now they're linear and truncated."
I missed this idea, where did they say the caps are going to happen?
So they can't use heavy weapons.  Pray tell, how is that any different from a human's inability to swing a bulldozer?

Pray tell, how are those things in any way whatsoever similar?

I think that it's absolutely ridiculous to think that differently sized races won't built tools appropriate sized for themselves. Halflings don't use chairs appropriately sized for Humans; they built their own chairs appropriately sized for themselves. Halflings don't use longbows appropriately sized for Humans; they build their own longbows appropriately sized for themselves.

Stop. I know what you're about to say: "The Halfling's longbow is the same as the Human's shortbow, though!" No, no it isn't. That makes no sense because then Halflings only have one size of bow, which means they're not smart enough to make shortbows appropriately sized for themselves, which is, again, ridiculous.

This was one of the things that they got so wrong in 4E, and it's really disappointing to see it going wrong again in Next. Even 3.5 did it better, allowing creatures of different sizes to use any weapon as long as it is appropriately sized. And nobody complained back then, because that made perfect sense. The difference essentially came down to one die lower damage exchanged for +1 to hit from the size bonus.

Even more hilariously, what this means is that, if that thematic reason behind the size bonus to hit (perspective difference) were instead modeled as a size bonus to damage, it would cancel out with the smaller die for reduced weapon size, meaning that small characters could use all weapon types in the exact same manner as medium characters and with zero mechanical difference. The only thing necessary for this to make perfect sense would then be for the rules to detail what happens when you use an inappropriately sized weapon. This would be the ideal situation in my book, and it's what I'll house rule if I need to, just as I did in 4E.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!

And in the end, if the entirety of your class revolved around a single +1 or +2 stat bonus determining whether or not they are gimped, you're playing a pretty boring game and/or class.



Welcome to D&D! Any bonus can be optimized and everyone gets ability scores, so when you give up on a +2 you lose 10% efficiency regardless of class.


I just think it's a bit silly of a mental image to see the strongest halfing, who's what? A hundred or so pounds? Be statistically identical the strongest half-orc, who's 300 pounds, in an arm wrestling contest.



Do you have this problem for any ability besides strength? 

Really I think this just comes down to the designers wanting an elegant solution to game balance without regard for verisimilitude. It is a common problem for D&D, something many people found rampant in the design of 4e. You have to give up reality to allow the rules to act as a game and the question to be asking is how far should we go in one direction. I don't like racial caps because from a game perspective they are identical to restrictions on class selection due to race. 

Welcome to D&D! Any bonus can be optimized and everyone gets ability scores, so when you give up on a +2 you lose 10% efficiency regardless of class.



Optimized, yes. Gimped, no. If a halfling and a half-orc decide to train, level up and fight in EXACTLY the same way, I would expect one of them to be better. I'm pretty big into CharOp stuff these days and I can't imagine a single instant that +1 or +2 completely breaks things in any sort of traditional, non-exploit based game play.  

Do you have this problem for any ability besides strength?



All the abilities, I just chose one that is the most obviously presentable.

I can PROMISE you, the strongest 300 pound male on the planet is stronger than the strongest 100 pound male. That was an easy way of displaying it. 
In the end, and this is why it bothers me, the current system says that every single race is exactly identical once it reaches it's full potential.

A 250 pound orc with 20's all the way down their stat sheet is the maximum that any orc could ever be . . . and a race that's half their size, who's max'd out their races physical potential, is identical.

I don't like that.

I also don't like the capless stat system . . . but if we're going to enforce racial differences at the beginning of play, we should do it at the end of play, as well. 
Perhaps the better way to make the caps is to have all the races cap at 18, excluding humans.  Maybe you can drop the starting +s they get that a good number on the boards seem to think are a bit much.

Each other race can reach 20 in any favored attribute.  So High elves can have a 20 int, and Stout Halflings can have a 20 charisma.  Humans can have a 20 in whatever they want.

  
That's a solid solution. Stats cap at X unless it's one of your racial bonuses . . . then it +2 higher (which means +1 to most mechanical benefits).
Stat caps are a great way to represent what would have been a penalty in 3e. Instead of dinking your half-orc for 2 int you just can't buy/roll higher than a 16 for int as a 1st level half-orc.

For bonuses they're not as useful. Better to just have the bonus be applied and whatever number that is is what you get. Now the current set up is such that a non-human race is not gonna get past 20 at level 1, while a human can only get up to 21.

As to the issue of races getitng pigeon holed over small bonuses, I found that less prevalent in 4e where the races didn't generally suck at classes and had potent abilities all their own. In 3e racial pigeonholing was pretty rampant because most of the non-human base races had stat penalties and very little in the way of powers that were particularly influential. When you have just a series of minor numerical alterations picking races purely to boost your class is simultaneously easier and more attractive because half the time you forget what your race even is. On the other hand in 4e your race was an important and defining decision and had significant impact on how you played throughout the character's career. 
That's a solid solution. Stats cap at X unless it's one of your racial bonuses . . . then it +2 higher (which means +1 to most mechanical benefits).



+1
I can PROMISE you, the strongest 300 pound male on the planet is stronger than the strongest 100 pound male. That was an easy way of displaying it. 

Are you sure? So I can't have a halfling fighter with 18+ strength and have the backstory be he was blessed by Kord with super strength as long as he never shaved his feet? Damn, I guess I will have to make him a half-orc instead. It's unfortunate my character doesn't live in a fantasy world where magic really exists...nevermind.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I can PROMISE you, the strongest 300 pound male on the planet is stronger than the strongest 100 pound male. That was an easy way of displaying it. 

Are you sure? So I can't have a halfling fighter with 18+ strength and have the backstory be he was blessed by Kord with super strength as long as he never shaved his feet? Damn, I guess I will have to make him a half-orc instead. It's unfortunate my character doesn't live in a fantasy world where magic really exists...nevermind.




Minus your attempt at being snarky, you've answered your own question. You came up with some random magical way to change your racial limits. I'm talking about general, non-influenced, standards and logic.

And yes, I am absolutely certain that the strongest 300 pound male on this planet is much stronger than the strongest 100 pound human on this planet.
Perhaps the better way to make the caps is to have all the races cap at 18, excluding humans.  Maybe you can drop the starting +s they get that a good number on the boards seem to think are a bit much.

Each other race can reach 20 in any favored attribute.  So High elves can have a 20 int, and Stout Halflings can have a 20 charisma.  Humans can have a 20 in whatever they want.

  



+1
DM: Products of MY Imagination ©. Since 1986.
So they can't use heavy weapons.  Pray tell, how is that any different from a human's inability to swing a bulldozer?

Pray tell, how are those things in any way whatsoever similar?

I think that it's absolutely ridiculous to think that differently sized races won't built tools appropriate sized for themselves. Halflings don't use chairs appropriately sized for Humans; they built their own chairs appropriately sized for themselves. Halflings don't use longbows appropriately sized for Humans; they build their own longbows appropriately sized for themselves.

Stop. I know what you're about to say: "The Halfling's longbow is the same as the Human's shortbow, though!" No, no it isn't. That makes no sense because then Halflings only have one size of bow, which means they're not smart enough to make shortbows appropriately sized for themselves, which is, again, ridiculous.

This was one of the things that they got so wrong in 4E, and it's really disappointing to see it going wrong again in Next. Even 3.5 did it better, allowing creatures of different sizes to use any weapon as long as it is appropriately sized. And nobody complained back then, because that made perfect sense. The difference essentially came down to one die lower damage exchanged for +1 to hit from the size bonus.

Even more hilariously, what this means is that, if that thematic reason behind the size bonus to hit (perspective difference) were instead modeled as a size bonus to damage, it would cancel out with the smaller die for reduced weapon size, meaning that small characters could use all weapon types in the exact same manner as medium characters and with zero mechanical difference. The only thing necessary for this to make perfect sense would then be for the rules to detail what happens when you use an inappropriately sized weapon. This would be the ideal situation in my book, and it's what I'll house rule if I need to, just as I did in 4E.


If weapons are your primary issue with ability score caps you can just use the 3.5 solution. Scale the weight and damage down one die for all weapons. I plan on doing that.
That's a solid solution. Stats cap at X unless it's one of your racial bonuses . . . then it +2 higher (which means +1 to most mechanical benefits).



+1



I like this.

I can PROMISE you, the strongest 300 pound male on the planet is stronger than the strongest 100 pound male. That was an easy way of displaying it. 

Are you sure? So I can't have a halfling fighter with 18+ strength and have the backstory be he was blessed by Kord with super strength as long as he never shaved his feet? Damn, I guess I will have to make him a half-orc instead. It's unfortunate my character doesn't live in a fantasy world where magic really exists...nevermind.




So what if a different maximum ability is just for common, non magical twisted creatures? And if you w3ant to make a Kord blessed halfling you say "hell to normal peopole, he has no strength maximum" 
By the time one is high enough level to hit the ability maximums, are they still common?
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
By the time one is high enough level to hit the ability maximums, are they still common?


A good question. I highly doubt a typical halfling would be anywhere near having a 20 Strength. It's possible but unlikely. 
I can PROMISE you, the strongest 300 pound male on the planet is stronger than the strongest 100 pound male. That was an easy way of displaying it. 

Are you sure? So I can't have a halfling fighter with 18+ strength and have the backstory be he was blessed by Kord with super strength as long as he never shaved his feet? Damn, I guess I will have to make him a half-orc instead. It's unfortunate my character doesn't live in a fantasy world where magic really exists...nevermind.




Kord, like most sensible beings, hates halflings.

There is fantasy, and then there is crazy talk Wink

I can PROMISE you, the strongest 300 pound male on the planet is stronger than the strongest 100 pound male. That was an easy way of displaying it. 

Are you sure? So I can't have a halfling fighter with 18+ strength and have the backstory be he was blessed by Kord with super strength as long as he never shaved his feet? Damn, I guess I will have to make him a half-orc instead. It's unfortunate my character doesn't live in a fantasy world where magic really exists...nevermind.

Minus your attempt at being snarky, you've answered your own question. You came up with some random magical way to change your racial limits. I'm talking about general, non-influenced, standards and logic.

And yes, I am absolutely certain that the strongest 300 pound male on this planet is much stronger than the strongest 100 pound human on this planet

Yes, I did answer my question, and I was being a bit snarky, but the point I was trying to make is that D&D is a fantasy game, and backstory is as real as any mechanics. Good mechanics support good story and balance, bad mechanics do not. Real world physics rarely applies to D&D. Unless your campaign has zero magic in it, the backstory I proposed is valid (because there are no mechanics for backstory). There is also no balance reason to limit abilities for races. So what is the reason?
Kord, like most sensible beings, hates halflings.

There is fantasy, and then there is crazy talk 

Didn't you know? The gods must be crazy Cool

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I can PROMISE you, the strongest 300 pound male on the planet is stronger than the strongest 100 pound male. That was an easy way of displaying it. 

Are you sure? So I can't have a halfling fighter with 18+ strength and have the backstory be he was blessed by Kord with super strength as long as he never shaved his feet? Damn, I guess I will have to make him a half-orc instead. It's unfortunate my character doesn't live in a fantasy world where magic really exists...nevermind.

Minus your attempt at being snarky, you've answered your own question. You came up with some random magical way to change your racial limits. I'm talking about general, non-influenced, standards and logic.

And yes, I am absolutely certain that the strongest 300 pound male on this planet is much stronger than the strongest 100 pound human on this planet

Yes, I did answer my question, and I was being a bit snarky, but the point I was trying to make is that D&D is a fantasy game, and backstory is as real as any mechanics. Good mechanics support good story and balance, bad mechanics do not. Real world physics rarely applies to D&D. Unless your campaign has zero magic in it, the backstory I proposed is valid (because there are no mechanics for backstory). There is also no balance reason to limit abilities for races. So what is the reason?



The reason certain races need to be kept down is because some people would like to limit the creativity of others and force us to play their ideal racial stereotypes. They can't think outside of them so those of us who want to are not allowed to either.

At least that's what I've gotten from this thread in general.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

At least that's what I've gotten from this thread in general.

Just this thread?
It's a running theme of the entire DDN forum group.
By the time one is high enough level to hit the ability maximums, are they still common?


Level 4? Yes. If you roll an 18, you have abonus from class you are 19 alrady. If race gives you a bonus you reach the max at first level. Otherwise it's 4th level. So yes, they are still pretty common people. Or at least nothing extraordinary.
Rolling aside, going by the standard array, humans can max an ability at level 8, everyone else by level 12.

By making everything the same no player will feel penalized numerically for picking a certain race/class combo. A full on gish character can put 14 in his primary melee ability, and magic ability, pick a race and class that adds one to each of those, and be able to maximize both abilities by 20. However, he also by intentionally giving him self lower abilities to start, have higher abilities elsewhere that affect saves/skills.

Another player starting with an 18 will maximize his ability by level 8, and then can start spending those other ability points elsewhere to improve saves/skills. Two seperate paths to get to the same result.

Race and class bonuses now mean "I peak quicker." I can make my half-orc black sheep of the family wizard, and not feel that I'm not as good as I could be because of what I wanted to roleplay, he will be just as smart as the elf or human wizard, it's just going to take him a little more time to get there.
Concerning the thread title:  Why Not?

A half-Orc is a watered down version of their Monstrous parent, while it migt be typical for them to be stronger and less charismatic, it wouldn't always play out the same.  Whatever that other half is, it would have more or less of an affect depending on what kind of character you happen to be playing.

Also, while Elves have tended to be considered less hearty or more frail compared to Humans, I've never read that they aren't able to be as Strong.  Since those are two different characteristics that, in D&D, have little or no effect on each other, there's no reason an Elf could not be as Strong as a half-Orc.

A lot of people are assuming that, based on size, a Halfling could not be as strong as a Human.  To be fair, there is quite a bit of fluff that reinforces that opinion.  However if you look at animals, such as a pit bull or chimpanzee, you can see that size is Not a determining factor in how strong something can be.  Genetics is, and since genetics has little representation in D&D, there is again no reason a Halfling could not be as strong as a Human.
If weapons are your primary issue with ability score caps you can just use the 3.5 solution. Scale the weight and damage down one die for all weapons. I plan on doing that.

Huh? No, the weapons issue is completely unrelated to the one of ability score caps. I can see how that went off on a tangent, sorry. As for my solution to it, read the last paragraph. My solution isn't to go the 3.5 route because that would require also giving small characters a +1 size bonus to attack rolls. Rather, my solution would be to make the mechanics for small weapon effectively identical to those of their medium counterparts.

As for the actual issue of ability score caps? I don't like them, but it's more because I think that they're symptomatic of other problems within the system. I think that a system that it properly designed and balanced should not need any ability score caps whatsoever to remain that way. 4E didn't have them, but it still did just fine becaues the rest of the system was balanced. As for having different ability score caps for different races, that just strikes me as completely unnecessary. We don't need a whole separate mechanic to tell us that Haf-Orcs are stronger than Halflings; the fact that Half-Orcs get +1 Strength while Halflings don't should model that well enough mechanically. If it's not enough to model that well enough mechanically, then, again, I think that points to issues with the rest of the system.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Anyway, the days of halflings being particularly weak are gone.

Tell that to the idiotic weapon restrictions they get for small size.


For better or worse, weapon restrictions have nothing to do with strength. A Str 3 human can wield a greatsword, and a Str 20 halfling can't. It's not exactly realistic, but abandoning this approach would make things a whole lot more complicated.

As for your point about halflings making their own-sized weapons, that's just semantics. Personally, I kind of liked how 3e did it, but I can see how labelling weapons from the medium-sized perspective is simpler. Mechanically, it doesn't (or shouldn't) make much difference. A halfling's greatsword is equivalent to a human's bastard sword, and we're human-centric enough to just call it that.

It bugs me more with bigger creatures. If we're using human-centric names for everything, what are we supposed to call a giant's longsword?
Elves have always been as strong as Half-Orcs, you just picked the proper subrace out of the lineup (Wood Elves, I believe it was that got +2 strength) and bam, there you were.

One reason we need to get rid of subraces, IMO, but thats for the other thread.
For better or worse, weapon restrictions have nothing to do with strength. A Str 3 human can wield a greatsword, and a Str 20 halfling can't. It's not exactly realistic, but abandoning this approach would make things a whole lot more complicated.

I am well aware that they have nothing to do with strength. What I completely disagree with is that abandoning this unrealistic approach would make things more complicated. In fact, going with the approach that I suggest is both more realistic and simpler.

As for your point about halflings making their own-sized weapons, that's just semantics. Personally, I kind of liked how 3e did it, but I can see how labelling weapons from the medium-sized perspective is simpler.

Calling it just semantics doesn't mean that it's not a problem. How is going medium-centric on everything, and thus necessitating different rules for how differently sized creatures wield the same weapons, possibly any simpler than just not doing that and not detailing any mechanical difference at all?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
For better or worse, weapon restrictions have nothing to do with strength. A Str 3 human can wield a greatsword, and a Str 20 halfling can't. It's not exactly realistic, but abandoning this approach would make things a whole lot more complicated.

I am well aware that they have nothing to do with strength. What I completely disagree with is that abandoning this unrealistic approach would make things more complicated. In fact, going with the approach that I suggest is both more realistic and simpler.


Well, you did bring it up in the context of strength comparisons...

So what is your suggestion?

Oh I see, you mean this

Even more hilariously, what this means is that, if that thematic reason behind the size bonus to hit (perspective difference) were instead modeled as a size bonus to damage, it would cancel out with the smaller die for reduced weapon size, meaning that small characters could use all weapon types in the exact same manner as medium characters and with zero mechanical difference. The only thing necessary for this to make perfect sense would then be for the rules to detail what happens when you use an inappropriately sized weapon. This would be the ideal situation in my book, and it's what I'll house rule if I need to, just as I did in 4E.


I thought you had a reasonable way to make the weapons you could wield depend on your Str.

So in your plan, a giant's longsword would do 1d8? Seems a bit weird to me.
Well, you did bring it up in the context of strength comparisons...

Not exactly, I brought it up as a tangent in response to, "Anyway, the days of halflings being particularly weak are gone.", though I can see how that could be interpreted multiple ways...

So what is your suggestion?

Just don't worry about it. It's seriously that simple. Small character have all of the exact same weapons that medium creatures do, because they're capable of making weapons appropriately sized for themselves, and these weapons are mechanically identical to the weapons that medium creatures use, because at worst you could argue for reduced damage due to weapon size but then I could argue for increased damage due to perspective difference (where small creatures got their size bonus to attack in 3.5), which would cancel that out. At worst, include a few lines of text somewhere in the weapons section saying that you take a minor penalty to attack with a weapon created for a creature not of your size. Bam, problem solved.

Edit: I see you found it. Nope, nothing to do with Strength score. While that might be realistic, it would also be unnecessarily complicated.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
In an earlier packet, the cap was 18 plus racial and class bonus.  So you capped at 18 for most stats, but coulld go to 19 or 20 depending on what your specific race/class was.


It sounds like they may have abandoned this idea, but I kinda liked it.  Although it does give humans a big bump over everyone else.

Carl
Rolling aside, going by the standard array, humans can max an ability at level 8, everyone else by level 12.

By making everything the same no player will feel penalized numerically for picking a certain race/class combo. A full on gish character can put 14 in his primary melee ability, and magic ability, pick a race and class that adds one to each of those, and be able to maximize both abilities by 20. However, he also by intentionally giving him self lower abilities to start, have higher abilities elsewhere that affect saves/skills.

Another player starting with an 18 will maximize his ability by level 8, and then can start spending those other ability points elsewhere to improve saves/skills. Two seperate paths to get to the same result.

Race and class bonuses now mean "I peak quicker." I can make my half-orc black sheep of the family wizard, and not feel that I'm not as good as I could be because of what I wanted to roleplay, he will be just as smart as the elf or human wizard, it's just going to take him a little more time to get there.



I don't get this line of thought. It's like we need to coddle people's personal decisions to ensure that everyone is equal . . . in a game that already has inherently unequal races. It's like political correctness has infected fantasy worlds.

Half-orcs are bigger and stronger than Halflings, who are quicker and faster. I just find it odd that a 'peaked' halfling and half-orc are identical considering that they are dramatically different in size. Is it such a sin to have a very slight statistical modifier to represent this? 

size is Not a determining factor in how strong something can be.



Yes, yes it is. A flea will never be able to bench press 200 pounds.