D&D 5E Free +2/+1 ASI instead of racial ASI?

[Lanliss]

I am already going to be doing this, except it will instead be 3 floating points, to put wherever the player likes. My players are not the power gamer sort, so I am not worried about them putting all points in dex because "Uberstat". One of my players actually requested a flat -10 to ranged atttacks, because her character wasn't good at ranged attacks of any sort.

 

[Ragmon]

I don't know that there are any balance issues, per se, other than some races have other abilities that may be considered at the same "point value" as an ASI.

The real reason for racial bonuses is to reinforce racial stereotypes/archetypes. I prefer to have those archetypes in place, but it's not something that would put me out too far to have removed. If you're going to remove them, though, I'd just remove them for everyone, including humans (use the variant, sans ability bonuses). If that ends up making characters that are lower powered than you like, use a higher point-buy pool.

If you're using dice, then 4d6, drop lowest should work (it did in 1E). If that's too low, try 5d6, drop 2. If that's too high, then, yeah, a +1/+2 should do the trick. I just like keeping points and dice separate.

Stereotypes/archetypes should just go and die in a fire. Is it the idea of gnome barbarians that you don't like, or the half-orc wizard?

Well getting rid of the ASI is kind of a waste, using it in a different manner feels nicer.

Its not about the numbers at all, its about the Race/Class choice for PCs and how the core rules encourage you to use certain R/C combos just because you would be better at that roll.

 

[Ragmon]

I am already going to be doing this, except it will instead be 3 floating points, to put wherever the player likes. My players are not the power gamer sort, so I am not worried about them putting all points in dex because "Uberstat". One of my players actually requested a flat -10 to ranged attacks, because her character wasn't good at ranged attacks of any sort.

Do the players go with more unorthodox race/class combos as a result?

 

[Lanliss]

Do the players go with more unorthodox race/class combos as a result?

I have not done it yet, as my group does not play all that often. As it is, they don't care about what class is meant for which race, so the most I can say is that this will make it easier for them to do what they were going to anyway.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Stereotypes/archetypes should just go and die in a fire.

Fantasy racial stereotypes are ludicrously important to widespread acceptance of a game. If you have a standard fantasy setting with Legolas-style elves and Gimli-style dwarves, then anyone in the world is already up-to-speed, and there's zero barrier to entry. That's why the standard exists, and why it remains popular.

As you deviate from the expected norms, the barrier to entry rises precipitously. A setting full of gnome berserkers and half-orc wizards is going to give prospective players some pause.

 

[Mercule]

Stereotypes/archetypes should just go and die in a fire. Is it the idea of gnome barbarians that you don't like, or the half-orc wizard?

Like I said, I prefer them, but they aren't something that I'd be particularly angst-ridden to see disappear.

Why do I prefer them? Simple: There's really no point in having non-humans in a game if they're the same as humans (or humans with tusks, humans with pointy ears, short humans, fungal humans, etc.). I despise the tropes of having a non-human race stand in for a human culture. That means all humans are the same, which is silly. Of course, it doesn't make sense that all elves are the same, either. Regardless, the archetypes move the "average" for each race and the statistical modifications reinforce it.

Why wouldn't I miss it? Simple: In the generic games I've played, where there are no built-in racial modifiers, players still tend to make dexterous elves, sturdy dwarves, etc. They handle their own statistical reinforcements. If someone wanted to play a muscle-bound, stupid, clumsy elf without playing up the fact that he was running against type, it would annoy me. But, that sort of thing has never happened.

As far as gnomish barbarians or half-orc wizards go, I assume there are some running around in a "stock" D&D world. They're almost certainly ice skating uphill, in some sense. If they're successful, it's in spite of their race, and that's part of the deal. If you want to make gnomish barbarians the norm, then feel free to change the modifiers and/or racial abilities for them, in your setting. That's all part and parcel of being a DM.

 

[Bacon Bits]

From a pure balance issue, some races are meant to have certain bonuses in order to prevent them from being too good with certain classes.

I don't think it has anything to do with being "too good" and everything to do with reinforcing the flavor of each race. Would it make sense for a High Elf to get +2 Con/+1 Str? No, that's completely against the flavor of the race. Would it be broken? No, not at all. How about a Half-Orc getting +2 Cha/+1 Int? Again, that's exactly not how the race is described and it doesn't make sense.

I would say that the quantity of bonus is a balance issue, but that which attributes are selected isn't a significant consideration for balance. After all, regardless of which race you pick you can use ASIs to overcome any deficit. Half-Elves get a +4, most other races get +2 or +3.

I mean, no, they probably wouldn't make a race with +2 Int and free medium armor proficiency. However, I would say that the Mountain Dwarf subrace is unique in that it's benefit overlaps relatively poorly with it's ability scores (only Rogue really benefits). The majority of subraces are quite the opposite. High Elves get +1 Int and an extra cantrip. Wood Elves get +1 Wis, Mask of the Wild, Elf Weapon Training, and Fleet of Foot and make excellent Rangers and Druids. Gnomes get +1 Dex or +1 Con to pair with the natural +2 Int, both secondary abilities for Wizards, and one gets a bonus cantrip and the other gets Artifacer's Lore.

 

[Lanliss]

I don't think it has anything to do with being "too good" and everything to do with reinforcing the flavor of each race. Would it make sense for a High Elf to get +2 Con/+1 Str? No, that's completely against the flavor of the race. Would it be broken? No, not at all. How about a Half-Orc getting +2 Cha/+1 Int? Again, that's exactly not how the race is described and it doesn't make sense.

I would say that the quantity of bonus is a balance issue, but that which attributes are selected isn't a significant consideration for balance. After all, regardless of which race you pick you can use ASIs to overcome any deficit. Half-Elves get a +4, most other races get +2 or +3.

I mean, no, they probably wouldn't make a race with +2 Int and free medium armor proficiency. However, I would say that the Mountain Dwarf subrace is unique in that it's benefit overlaps relatively poorly with it's ability scores (only Rogue really benefits). The majority of subraces are quite the opposite. High Elves get +1 Int and an extra cantrip. Wood Elves get +1 Wis, Mask of the Wild, Elf Weapon Training, and Fleet of Foot and make excellent Rangers and Druids. Gnomes get +1 Dex or +1 Con to pair with the natural +2 Int, both secondary abilities for Wizards, and one gets a bonus cantrip and the other gets Artifacer's Lore.

In my world, there was quite a large catastrophe. People of any race that allowed themselves to be pigeonholed into only 1 skill (Smart, strong, face, etc.) died from not being flexible enough to handle the new world in its entirety. The ones who remain come from flexible enough bloodlines that they can reasonably turn out however my players want them.

 

[KahlessNestor]

5e is very forgiving in playing "off type" R/C combos. You can be perfectly adequate. But archetypes exist for a reason. If I want to play a half orc wizard, it's BECAUSE it's a "rarity". I want to play ip hos uniqueness. If there are no archetypes, then there is nothing unique, either.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[Saeviomagy]

Fantasy racial stereotypes are ludicrously important to widespread acceptance of a game. If you have a standard fantasy setting with Legolas-style elves and Gimli-style dwarves, then anyone in the world is already up-to-speed, and there's zero barrier to entry. That's why the standard exists, and why it remains popular.

As you deviate from the expected norms, the barrier to entry rises precipitously. A setting full of gnome berserkers and half-orc wizards is going to give prospective players some pause.

Sure, but presenting the setting is NOT writing the rules for making PCs. You can have legolas elves and gimli dwarves in your setting even when those tropes are mechanically poor for them.

Right now, elves and dwarves are getting weapon proficiencies and armor proficiencies that make them legolas-like and gimli-like even if they don't choose fighter as their class (and it probably doesn't have any effect on character classes that don't prioritise the appropriate stats). The thing is that this only really helps world-building, and if you're world building, you just make more dwarves and elves fighters, you don't worry that the elven potter doesn't get longbow on his list of weapons. As long as the generic monster entry for 'elf' gives him stats for a longbow, elves will be typically armed with bows.

So given that, it matters not a whit if you let PCs choose where their +1 and +0.5 stat modifiers go. They could always have bucked the stereotypes, and now you just make it less painful... and it doesn't change your setting one little bit.