Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Race Ability Scores

Just a small suggestion.

In 5e, WotC is moving away from fixed race-specific ability modifiers. Instead, players get a +2 bonus to one stat of their choice and a +1 bonus to another. I think this is a great improvement because it removes the feeling of being penalized for making (for example) a halfling barbarian. As WotC is already going in this direction, please consider adopting it in BG3!

Thank you! The improvements that have been coming out with each patch have been fantastic.

Halflings make the best barbarians, I don't know what you're talking about. ^.^

(No, but really - a Dex-con boost is ideal for barbarians, and the ability to pass through larger creature's spaces lets you get right into the thick of groups and start taking attention more easily. The thing that makes people not like halflings and gnomes for Barb is the penalty they have with heavy weapons - which ability score freedom won't change)

Also, obligatory: Besides, you can't fight evil if you're don't look cute.

I would prefer that Larian keeps the race-specific ability scores as it provides depth to the character creation. If you want to make a halfling barbarian or a dwarf bard you are free to do so, sometimes suboptimal choices are the most fun ones. You don't have to play a character that is the best at everything, besides rolling for stats is already confirmed so this isn't even a problem in the first place.

Once Larian implement rolled stats (and they promised! :P ) ...
Racial Ability scores become much less relevant ... if all it takes to start your Halfling Barbarian with 18Str is few rerolls ... then just reroll few times.

I think there should also be minuses to stats for picks. And maximums. For instance, I don't think the strongest halfling should ever be as strong as the strongest half-orc.

Precisely! It's just not worth the effort on Larians behalf.

I'm so NOT a fan of the idea of removing any meaningful differentiator between races.
I'd rather see way to make alternate builds more viable (i.e. DEX based barbarians and so on).

That's not entirely true.
Any race with, say, a +2 STR will still able to start with a 20 in STR after rolling a 18, which is not an option for a race with no bonus on that stat (sorry, ABILITY).

That is exactly the reason i said "less" relevant ... instead "irellevant".

Also, maybe im wrong here but i cant help the feeling that if we start concidering all 6 stats, its not so obvious to say wich Barbarian is better. :-/
I mean 20 Str is fine ...
But 20 Dex, or 20 Con is also not bad ... even 20 Wis or 20 Cha can be usefull, for some really wild builds or different uses than attack.

And the beauty of rolling is that nobody say you still cant get second 18 for Str.
It would require a little more re-rolling tho.

Agreed ... but im affraid, that will never happen.

+1 for racial ASIs of some sort, as different races (which in D&D are essentially different species, albeit somehow able to interbreed) do have distinct inherent racial traits.

I agree that this can feel punishing using point-buy, so I wouldn't be opposed to some solution here. Maybe an increased point buy that allows you to buy a 16..? But, as has been mentioned above, rolling for stats would allow any race to get an 18 in a stat at level 1, which is more than good enough.

I could also agree that the +2/+1 is too much to be determined solely by race, and that these bonuses should be split into 2 or even 3: racial (unchangeable), background/culture (chosen), and/or class (limited selection of options: e.g., fighters can choose between str and dex; barbarians between str and con; wizards can only choose int; etc).

Also, potentially the ability score maximum of 20 could be raised based on your race. Orcs have a natural potential for a 22 strength, elves for a 22 dex, dwarves for a 22 con, gnomes for a 22 Int, etc. Though I think this change would need to come with separating ASIs and feats, otherwise it'd even more discourage taking feats at high levels. I don't think there should be racial reduced stat maximums, as a max of 18 provides very little room for improvement.

I actually really like the idea of backgrounds and classes giving you extra bonuses as well as race. That's a good way to reflect actual training as well as making it easier to avoid certain combinations being just entirely better. And I like the idea of race raising the potential ability cap.

I was thinking exactly this.

I have used this program (roll 4 sixes and drop the lowest). do this six times.

On two separate occasions I have done this, and both times my first roll was RNG goodness. I won't personally feel bad rolling to match my own luck.


The racial stats just add more flavor to the build for you .

As strongly as I'm in favour of keeping racial ability score modifiers, I'm just as strongly against ability score penalties, and even more strongly against the idea of different races having different maximums. It goes against the entire philosophy of the design.

In particular, the caps: Olympic athletes in our world are not 20s. They are 17-18 at best. The cap scores, are individuals whose ability in those areas is super-mortal, and level 20 characters, who might have several scores at 20, are themselves on the cusp of demi-god status. This is a point where, thematically, the differences between abilities based on their race are so far left behind as to be non-existent. If you have 2 level 20 wizards and one of them is a half-orc and one of them is a gnome - and they are both the peak of wizarding capability and breaching the edges of mortal capability... No, at that point, the gnome does not have an edge on the half-orc. Not any more.

The whole point of the system as it was developed is that while we are all different and have different strengths and weaknesses innately, as part of our heritage, anyone, from any walk of life and any origin, Can aspire to the absolute maximum of mortal capabilities, and, if they put that work in, can be just as good as anyone else who does the same. That was the point. From a mechanical point of view, it was also designed to ensure that no-one was actually penalised in their ultimate capabilities by the race they picked - there would be differences early on, but ultimately, they would not be any less capable than any other choice. Removing that would be a step backwards in system design.

The problem with this design is that there even is a cap in the first place. :-/
While Half-Orc that will study his whole life can reach Int 20 ...
He will spend double time than a Gnome, who can reach the same in much shorter time ...

Funny (and the problematic) part is that once any of them reach that point ... no matter what they study, no matter how hard they try, no matter anything ... they will never get to 21 and beyond.

Sure, this only works when your character is focused on single Ability Score ... since logicaly, once you reach your limit in one aspect, its about time to start focusing on something else, so in general, the Gnome will still be few steppes ahead (unless he decide to start Workout ).

But still ...
The problem i personaly have (and i would bet im not alone) with ability scores is that while you are training, you get stronger and stronger and stronger (or smarter, or flexible, or tough, you get the idea) ... and then sudently it goes *ding* and no matter how hard you will keep training, you never get any stronger ... and you can only watch that little Gnome to reach the same power as you have.

I completely understand its basicaly just game ballance rule.
But honestly i believe its jut matter of wich kind of players are sitting by your table ... since you either piss off those who will complain "his character is better just bcs he picked this race" ... or you piss off those who will complain "his character is just as good as mine even tho he picked this race" ...

I must say im surprised to see you defending this Niara.
Since you dislike that WotC are wiping out any difference between our races ... i would expect you to vote in favour to distinguish them even more, by allowing those with inherit predispositions to get their score one step futher.
Gues i was wrong.

Personaly ... and this may not be the most popular opinion.
I would like it if Racial Bonus would apply AFTER you reach limit of 20 ... instead of before.
Since i really like that idea that no matter how hard you train, if your race is naturaly smart, naturaly strong, naturaly flexible, etc. ... even though you reached apex of mortal capabilities, your apex is still a one tiny-step futher, than the others. :P

I'll just say that it makes more sense to me that a gnome fighter who's trained for battle every day for years would naturally be stronger than a half orc wizard who has spent her whole life studying in a library, but at the same time, that gnome fighter is simply not physically capable of being AS strong as that half orc could potentially be if she decided to devote herself to training.

Also just to provide another example, the Dragon Age ttrpg has a system where rather than choosing specifically your race, you choose your background instead. A lot of those backgrounds are directly tied to race, but not all of them, and there are also several different backgrounds per race, representing actual background and cultural differences. Each background comes with a couple automatic specialties and stat increases, and a random roll table where you can either roll for or pick two other bonuses, to further differentiate two characters from the same background. I think that's a way more interesting way to differenciate characters and make them feel more distinct, as opposed to just a couple points in each stat based purely on race. It means that even in a group of just elves, you can get a very unique variety right out of the gate.

I prefer the way it was in first edition, with maximums based on race and even sex.