Community

Dec 13, 2012 -- 4:58PM, Zardnaar wrote:

The powers were different of course but the pattern was the same for most of the races. +2/+2, +2 some skill, racial power and some minor bits and pieces.

And this was any more formulaic than races in previous editions because...? Because, for example, when I look at 3.5 or Pathfinder, I pretty much see +2/-2, +2 to some skills, some minor bits and pieces.  And when I look at DDN, I pretty much see +1, some minor bits and pieces.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 2:32PM, mexrage wrote:

I still don't know how someone would like racial ability scores penalties...is kinda of a dumb idea and prevent diferent race/class combos.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 3:02PM, Kishri wrote:

Of course, if the game has both penalties AND bonuses, then the mod suck factor sinks to a -2.  Still, is that the end of viability for a class?  Does the character with a 14 in a prime stat totally suck?  If the answer is yes, then the game system as well as its players' attitudes might need a rethink.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 5:47PM, Phoenix182 wrote:

Exactly! You can play a character with straight 7s, won't make ANY difference in the game.

In every case, I place the blame squarely on the Universal Ability Modifier.  It was a well-intentioned decision, designed to simplify the various roles played by the ability score, but the unforeseen side-effect was to make every penalty instantly tangible and every bonus equally important in perpetuity.  In AD&D at least, you could play a perfectly capable character with 9s across the board, because anything less than a 14 or 15 had no impact on anything except actual ability checks (the equivalent of skill checks, in many cases) - and the 9 was only necessary to let you qualify for the class; most penalties (with the exception of spontaneous spell failure) didn't kick in until you had a 7 or less.

A -2 relative penalty should never invalidate a character from playing a class, even conceptually; if it does, then as Kishri mentioned, the game systems should be re-evaluated.