D&D 5E What To Do With Racial ASIs?

[cbwjm]

I've had more thoughts since I posted my idea of using half-elf as a template for races now that I'm on the website and can see the poll.

Most races have a +2/+1 ability increase, I think that the ability that receives a +2 should stay with the race. Then remove the +1 from race and move it to the class so that any race will be able to start with the so-called "required 16" in a main stat. Classes themselves should probably have a couple abilities to choose from to allow players a little bit more customisation and, depending on how this is done, the +1 might have to go somewhere that the race bonus doesn't. Though I'm fine with some races getting a +3 to a single ability, eventually that will lead to the same issue some have with the current system, that is that the race is chosen to match ability bonuses to the class.

I'm pretty sure that I've seen another RPG that does something similar to this, though they may have even greater flexibility and allow the race to choose a from a couple of abilities and the class to choose from a couple of abilities.

I still probably prefer half-elf ability adjustments as a template for races though as I think it keeps it simpler.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Rolling games have already tossed balance out the window, let the dice fall where they may.

But even with rolling games, the ASIs need to go somewhere.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not yet. I’ve fiddled with the concept quite a bit, but I haven’t tested it. I plan to in my next campaign. I can let you know how it goes if you want. That was kind of my point, until we actually try it and see what happens, we’re just at an impasse.

I’m curious how it goes. Both a before and after recap.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ugh.

Look, I am far from a proponent of "rules as physics", but the stats of the races are not "just there for PCs" as some folks claim. They represent what the race is like. Orc PCs aren't just strong, they're from a people that is strong.

That matters. If it didn't, this conversation wouldn't even be happening, because it started because some folks don't want some races to be stronger than humans as a race. The "race shouldn't make you better at a class" is a branch of that conversation that is happening within the dnd community at large.

The orc writeup gives orcs greater strength. The rules for PCs allow a halfling to surpass what normal halflings can acheive and become just as strong as an also exceptional orc, but orcs and halflings almost never have 20 in any stat, because they aren't PCs or major characters in a campaign. For the vast majority of NPCs, the stats range from 8 to about 14 at most, never getting close to the PC maximum. WHich, btw, only applies to PCs! NPCs can have a 38 Strength is that is what makes sense to an adventure writer or DM, but vanishingly few people in the default, normal, dnd world have stats comperable to the PCs.

For many of us, the world building of the lore of orcs and halflings matters, and the bonuses are part of that.

Yes, an exceptional Halfling can reach the same maximum as an exceptional Orc, in strength. That maximum only exists to keep PC numbers in check, and only applies to PCs, whereas the +2 for being an Orc is part of the player's understanding of Orcs in the world.

Except PCs represent the tiniest, tiniest fraction of the overall population of any of these races.

I'm totally 100% behind MM entries for the various races reflecting these differences.

But PCs are not typical.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But if you have a player who wants to play Dwarves no matter what, they already do that. They just never play bards. We also have people who always want to play bards, and so they only play races that have a + to Charisma.

Well, that is my point. RAW they hardly ever branch out, but they are tempted and might try a new race if the ASI will benefit their class. By making it floating, they have no incentive to try a race that RAW would otherwise benefit their primary ability score.

Usually IME if someone chooses a race that does not have an ASI to support their class, it is because the race has other features that they find intriguing and interesting to support that class in other ways. In that respect, it is a pity IMO if someone who loves to play bards always wants to have a CHA +2 (or +1 maybe) race. There's nothing wrong with that of course, I just feel they are potentially depriving themselves of opportunities otherwise. But, to each their own.

And yes, the upper limit is still the same, so, why are we deciding that one player should have fewer feats and be mechanically weaker for the majority if not the entirety of the campaign? What are we gaining by denying people feats if they want to stay competitive?

Why do you think of it as penalizing one player?

If they don't have the ASI +2 where they want it, they have it someplace else. Maybe it bumps a save or a bunch of skills they want? A perfect example is the mountain dwarf wizard. Sure, one fewer prepared spell (with only 2 slots at level 1, hardly a big deal) and -1 on attacks/save DC? So, there is SO much of how good that character is that depends on other factors. Consider this as an example. A dwarf wizard in chain shirt has AC 13 all the time without having to use a spell slot (VERY VALUABLE!) for Mage Armor. Not only does he not need to bother learning and preparing the spell, he doesn't have to waste a slot casting it.

For the character who selects the INT +2 race for wizard, they get other benefits of course and might be more focused on getting that attack bonus and higher DC for saves.

Your assumption that an INT 14 wizard can't be competitive with an INT 16 wizard is off IMO. There are way too many other factors that influence what makes a character competitive (and/or useful and/or fun to play). Please don't misunderstand me, I totally get your point, I just don't believe it weighs as heavily as you do. YMMV of course.

See, this is sort of a catch-22.

Either the -1 to attacks, saves, ect is a big enough deal that it affects decision making, in whcih case we are leading people to never choose a non-Int race when playing wizards and making more cookie cutters.

Or

The -1 isn't a big deal and affects decision making, in which case allowing the other races to start with a 16 INT isn't a big deal and should be allowed.

Tomato - tamato?

More precisely, it leads to:

Most players always picking races that maximize their primary ability score via ASI +2

Or

Players potentially playing the same few races all the time because they can tailor the floating ASIs wherever they want them.

Honestly, it really doesn't matter to me. I am perfectly happy with RAW and I've played in many games with floating ASIs. Personally, I would rather just get rid of them altogether. My philosophy has always been you want a good score, put a high score there.

Either direction points to floating ASI's being more versatile and allowing more interesting builds.

Maybe? Maybe not. But then you might was well just boost all the systems and remove the ASIs altogether. The net effect is the same.

 

[Remathilis]

But even with rolling games, the ASIs need to go somewhere.

The ones gained from leveling remain as the do now. It's only the starting ones based on race I'm saying roll into the point buy array.

No, it doesn't fix the orc is strong than a halfling problem. All it does is remove appearance of the floating benefit from race and places it back in ability gen. Personally, it feels a bit OD&D/Basic to me to not have any starting ability bumps from race, but without the wonkiness of 3d6. (And if you really want to emulate old school, roll for them but don't cry when your high score is a 13).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No they did not. In this part of the example, they were both "null race". I was showing only the difference between the scores in this part of the example.

That is part of what I'm saying. The scores, by themselves, are not an interesting difference. A human wizard with 16 Int is just a straight better wizard than a human wizard with a 14 Int, and the difference between them is uninteresting and fully mechanical.

So, the claim that racial ASIs are interesting, seems to fall flat, because if that were true, then differences in ability score alone would be interesting.

Different ability arrangement in it self is somewhat interesting, but it is a part of the package. But it works for humans roo, if one wants, as abilities do not happen randomly (I mean not if you do it properly) and presumably inform other decisions. The player of that human wizard with int 14 presumably does something else with those points, which in turn will inform their feat and skill choices. Perhaps they get good charisma, to be a charlatan illusionsis or an enchanter and take skills and feats to match or something like that.

See, but this is not how my experience has ever played out. No one even looks at a non-Int Race for wizards, unless they have a very specific concept. And if they have that concept, why are we punishing them with a -1 to all their attacks?

Stop playing with min-maxers? People who care about funny fluffy builds usually are the same people who generally want the lore to be represented in the rules and will not mind their stats as they understand that that is part of reflecting the lore and they get other role appropriate benefits to compensate.

And, in the world you inhabit, where a -1 is not a punishment and a 14 in the stat is perfectly viable... people are already saying most of their wizards are mountain dwarves, for armor and con. So, again, the aspect you are arguing against is already a statement of fact for your side.

Sorry, I am not following you there. Some people like tough dwarf wizards yes, this is not strange. I'm sure some people like nimble halfling wizards too.

And, an unspoken benefit here is that with the floating scores, people can choose the types of things they want to focus on. If they have a 16 INT already, and they want to be an entertainer wizard with performance, then they can choose to put their other scores in charisma. They can choose to have a charismatic wizard, or maybe they want to choose to have a 14 IN, so they can have a 16 Con and 14 Cha. But, it gives full power to make those decisions to the players, which will help prevent Cookie Cutter builds, because now every Tiefling isn't getting social skills, because if you have a +2 to Cha, you have to use it, otherwise you just wasted that bonus.

Point buy allows you to put points in different stats. But yeah, racial ability modifiers encourage player to do something with the strengths of their chosen race regardless of the class they choose. This is a good thing as it reflects the lore of the race, it is working as intended.

See, this is sort of a catch-22.

Either the -1 to attacks, saves, ect is a big enough deal that it affects decision making, in whcih case we are leading people to never choose a non-Int race when playing wizards and making more cookie cutters.

Or

The -1 isn't a big deal and affects decision making, in which case allowing the other races to start with a 16 INT isn't a big deal and should be allowed.

Not this bizarre strawman again. It is not about affecting decision making, it is about simulating the lore.

Only barbarians I've seen are human, goliath and half orc
Only Rogues Elves, half-elves, humans, halflings
Only warlocks half-elves, tieflings, Aasimar

I'd say easily 85% to 90% of all characters I've seen are optimized like that.

So stop playing with min-maxers. Or don't. I don't care, but this is a you problem.

But they already don't.

Goliath with 10 str, Halfing with 15 is already RAW. It exists and if you do point buy is trivial to create. So the mechanics are already dissociated. The only way to prevent this would be to have static scores, so that Goliaths always have a strength of 16 and Halflings always have a strength of 8. Otherwise, this issue exists and will always exist.

And another dead strawhorse. Yes, individual variance exist. It is not about that. Goliaths have higher minimum, average and maximum starting strength than halflings, indicating their tendency to be stronger. This is not hard.

 

[DND_Reborn]

(And if you really want to emulate old school, roll for them but don't cry when your high score is a 13).

Actually, my favorite style of D&D is rolling for ability scores (in order) and then rolling for race! We used to play the ability scores you could modify with a -2 to one for a +1 to another sort of thing, limit of +3 to any one (for -6 elsewhere!).

Then you could choose your class and such.

 

[CleverNickName]

Actually, my favorite style of D&D is rolling for ability scores (in order) and then rolling for race! We used to play the ability scores you could modify with a -2 to one for a +1 to another sort of thing, limit of +3 to any one (for -6 elsewhere!).

Then you could choose your class and such.

We don't always create characters this way, but one time I did a Completely Random character. I rolled the stats in order, then rolled the race and subrace at random, then the class and subclass at random, and finally the background at random. And that's how I came to play one of my favorite characters, a dragonborn cleric of Bahamut with the Soldier background. To explain his 5 in Dexterity, I said that he had mangled his leg in battle and wears a heavy metal brace.

Optimization is overrated.

 

[EscherEnigma]

Welp, I've lost all patience I had for pedantry [...]

Pedantry is getting upset because I mixed up DMG Chapter 9 with an appendix in the MM (thought the monster/NPC factory stuff was in the MM. I'd swear that in some previous edition it was).

That PHB Chapters 1-6* are for players, and DMG Chapter 9 is for DMs, is not pedantry. It's the central claim.

Golaith stat block for PCs no more dictates NPC statblocks then the Drow stat block for PCs dictates for NPC drow.
________
*And similar race/class/background entries in other books.