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

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I explicitly recognized that PCs are exceptional. It was part of my point. I’m not sure why you think pointing it out again is a counter to anything I said? Can you elaborate?

 

[Helldritch]

Then use words carefully. You made a claim as if it were established fact. Then when I called you on it you made an improbable claim.

You assumed a lot. Never did I say that I had made a study or recorded the impression of hundreds of people during those years. It was pretty obvious for just about anyone that I am, just as every body around here, speaking from experience. IF I or anyone else here ever do such a study (or any other), I and they will mention it. Otherwise, all opinions here are personal. That should be obvious. Stating that I should cover all assumptions by choosing words carefully is again nitpicking. You are worth a lot more than that.

And what improbable did I claim? That I introduced over 200 players into the hobby over the years. That I made presentations to parents comitee, schoolboards and others. I also organized (and still do at times now) demonstrations of D&D with our D&D friday nights at our hobby store. Is that an improbable claim? Are you accusing me of lying?

As for my experience, sure, people have some preconceived motions.

And I the same. See? Even you can assertain this.

I certainly haven’t paid a lot of attention to it.

Well, I did because I had to break a lot of misconceptions and a lot of fear from parents, religious people and even schoolboards. (The satanic panic was quite something in my area).

Tolkien fans tend to be surprised that elves aren’t tall, and halflings aren’t barefoot, I guess. Some people think gnomes should be 6” tall. Not that it’s ever gotten in the way.

Exactly. The more a person is familiar with fantasy in general, the more he'll have expectations. Never heard of someone thinking that gnome should be 6' tall, but there are a lot of misconceptions out there, I'll give you that. Lucky it did not get in your way. It surely got into mine as the books were banned from the book and hobby store during the satanic panic in my area.

I can’t imagine that any one of them would, in the absence of racial ASIs, respond with “Wait...aren’t Dwarves supposed to be stronger than elves?” Or whatever.

But I don’t know for sure because it never came up.

Come to think of it, my first character ever, made for me by a friend’s older brother, was an elf with 18/33 strength. I didn’t find that strange.

From complete newbee, sure. You won't get much assumption. But again, the more a person is versed in the fantasy genre, the more he will have expectations. I have seen new players seeing a troll for the first time saying: "Aren't they supposed to be 6 inches tall with straight up hair as the small figurines?" Seeing an almost 10 feet tall Troll was a shock. Just as a friend that was well versed in the Lord of the ring refused to see an elf shorter than 6 feet. He was absolutely angry that elves in Greyhawk had been diminished and that they only lived 2000 years... There are all kinds of people out there with different expectations. Each will react differently. Some will accept deviation from their expectations, others will not.

No, I'm certainly not claiming that. I don't think racial ASIs are illogical. They just aren't necessary, and they have undesirable side effects.

Good. ASI are logical. But you think they have undesirable effects while I claim that they perfectly do what they should do. On the other hand, I do think that background/culture should give a bonus to stats too. @Charlaquin convinced me of that. And I thank her for the idea.

 

[Charlaquin]

Good. ASI are logical. But you think they have undesirable effects while I claim that they perfectly do what they should do. On the other hand, I do think that background/culture should give a bonus to stats too. @Charlaquin convinced me of that. And I thank him for the idea.

*her, but glad I could help

 

[Helldritch]

*her, but glad I could help

Forgive me. It shall not happen again.
Edit: Post above corrected.

 

[CleverNickName]

You could get some pretty interesting combos if you broke the ASIs down into single +1 bonuses to race, subrace, class, subclass, and background. Of course, races that don't have subraces (like half-orc or tiefling) would get +1 to two different stats...and clever players would try to cherry-pick them to get more than a +2 to a single stat...but anyway. Might be worth considering.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Needed might be the wrong word, but your words imply that mechanics are combat-centric. Your words:
"As long as the game rules are disproportionately focused on resolving combat, discussion of the game’s design will be similarly focused on combat. Obviously DMs can compensate for this combat focus on their own tables, but we’re talking about the game’s design and mechanics here."

So I point out that skill checks are just as important as combat, and they are also intricate to the mechanics of the game. I mean, stealth is just as strong as a good armor class. The ability to nature check a creature could increase damage as much as a barbarian going into rage. So skills count. Yet, they are avoided in the discussion, because it is not a number added to a person's to hit, damage or spell dc. I find that to be a limited take, and not addressing the debate in its entirety.

But that is heavily DM dependant. I know my saturday DM would never let us use nature to increase damage against an enemy.

And sure, stealth, social skills, and a whole lot of other factors can come into play, but with the rules as they are they might only come up sometimes. Every player in the group doesn't need a high persuasion. But every player in the group is going to be making attack rolls.

And, if we consider this in terms of classes, then we have to ask if the Fighter having a slightly better persuasion check matters if they are in the same party as a Bard with Expertise in Persuasion.

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.

Okay, but they don't want to play a non-dwarf. So why should we try and "tempt" them with something like an ASI?

The current situation is either:
They play a Dwarf (which they want to do) and are a worse bard
They play a non-Dwarf (which they don't want to do) and are an effective Bard.

Why can't they play a Dwarven Bard and be as mechanically effective as if they decided to play a Dwarven Fighter?

What your "temptation" actually does is dis-incentivize people from playing Dwarven Bards. Which is why it is so rare (I have found) for those other traits that support the class to be highlighted. Those people you feel are depriving themselves of opportunities are not interested in having a 14 in their prime ability. I've seen clerics who try it (a Dragonborn and a Gnome) and they were not fun for the players, because they lost too much and gained too little.

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.

Sure, Mountain Dwarf armor is great. And it is specifically great for a class that doesn't get armor.

Staying with wizard, how many benefits do we get out of Halfing? Or Dragonborn or Goliath?

Sure, maybe the Goliath who has mildly higher strength has slightly better grappling... but they are a wizard, they don't want to be grappling. The Dwarven Armor is the exception, not the rule. And being mildly better at the worst things I'm not expected to do.... yay? What benefit is that for me?

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.

Sure, that could work too.

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.

Right, but a human is 100% floating. They chose that array, and did so with a purpose.

Most other races don't get that choice.

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.

eye roll

Sure, the solution to people feeling pressured to make optimal choices is just to play with different people who don't care. Great solution.

Better idea. Instead of constantly trying to shop for a "perfect" group, how about we look into changing the rules.

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.

You know, in a floating +2/+1 situation, you've still got a second score to float. You can have a wizard who is tougher, wiser, more nimble or more charismatic.

So, you can still play a tough dwarven wizard or a nimble halfling wizard.

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.

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

So, Orcs don't worship the Gods? They wouldn't have a strong cleric class? Elves don't have famous Bards who have traveled the world?

Ah, of course they do. Their clerics and Bards are just less powerful.

And the lore you are trying to simulate is barely existent. Orcs are only stronger than humans who choose not to be strong, and you can set up arrays to have Elves and Tieflings who are stronger than specific orcs (using non-small races to avoid the endless "but are squirrels stronger than elephants" arguments, because surprise! Elves and Tielfings are medium and just as strong as halflings and gnomes)

But, the fact that I never see Gnome Fighters or Elvin Clerics? That I never even see them mentioned anywhere? That is a break in Verisimilitude for me. All races should have Clerics, Wizards, Rogues, Bards and Fighters. And they should all be capable of being equally skilled in those professions.

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

Well, thank you so much for your second time telling me to abandon my groups and look for better ones.

But, see, my experience seems to not be unique. Look at any guide and you'll see people saying that certain races should never be chosen for certain classes, based entirely on their ASI's. So, this isn't a me problem, it is a weakness in the system.

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.

Right, but we never go and look at every Goliath in the setting. We don't have census data on them.

In fact, the ASI only affects the game on an individual level. The tendency of them having higher minimums really does not matter.

Re: mountain dwarves making sub-par wizards, and certain races excelling at certain things--

It's a problem, for sure. But it shouldn't be. In an ideal game, anyone would make an excellent wizard if they had the proper training or education. If you think about it, wizard mountain dwarves could be amazing! Scribing their "spellbooks" onto stone tablets and runestones, and adorning the walls of their centuries-old Halls of Knowledge with forgotten magic. Using their arcane power, they shatter stone and fire their forges, shaping flame and stone and metal, and call forth creatures from the Plane of Earth to smash their foes.

Half-orc wizards would be awesome also. I imagine them tattooing their "spellbooks" onto their arms, legs, and chest according to the ancient traditions of their ancestors. Drawing upon the primal force of chaos to hasten or slow time and muddle the minds of trespassers. They don't whisper complicated incantations, they howl and roar their power directly into the faces of the enemy.

Exactly, but you see that almost never, because that 16 in their main stat is more important than all of that cool flavor.

I want these things.

From complete newbee, sure. You won't get much assumption. But again, the more a person is versed in the fantasy genre, the more he will have expectations. I have seen new players seeing a troll for the first time saying: "Aren't they supposed to be 6 inches tall with straight up hair as the small figurines?" Seeing an almost 10 feet tall Troll was a shock. Just as a friend that was well versed in the Lord of the ring refused to see an elf shorter than 6 feet. He was absolutely angry that elves in Greyhawk had been diminished and that they only lived 2000 years... There are all kinds of people out there with different expectations. Each will react differently. Some will accept deviation from their expectations, others will not.

Sure, but most of those expectations have nothing to do with ASIs.

Why are my dwarves not made of living stone? Why aren't they wielding Guns? Why are elves not living plants? What aren't Orcs Fungus? Aren't gnomes supposed to be able to turn invisible at whim?

None of that is "shouldn't I deal +1 damage on strength attacks"

 

[DND_Reborn]

On the other hand, I do think that background/culture should give a bonus to stats too

Well, PCs are already better than "normal" individuals as far as ASI are concerned, we all agree on that. 4d6k3 averages 12.25 (roughly), point-buy 12.5 (-ish), and standard array 12 average. Top that off with 2-4 points of ASI for race. Now, people discuss adding points for background/culture and even class. Most, I think, assume shifting some of the ASI around, trying to keep it at +3 or so. But, then it gets so diluted at each possible source it almost seems pointless to me. I don't know, even I have suggested such things but I've never been very keen on them.

The idea of race giving +1 to one of two, background giving +1 to one of two, and class giving +1 to one of two (or something similar) "works" but also seems so fiddly to me to wonder why even bother?

 

[DND_Reborn]

You could get some pretty interesting combos if you broke the ASIs down into single +1 bonuses to race, subrace, class, subclass, and background. Of course, races that don't have subraces (like half-orc or tiefling) would get +1 to two different stats...and clever players would try to cherry-pick them to get more than a +2 to a single stat...but anyway. Might be worth considering.

LOL this is just the sort of thing I was just posting about. "Works" but seems to fiddly to me...

 

[Helldritch]

Sure, but most of those expectations have nothing to do with ASIs.

Why are my dwarves not made of living stone? Why aren't they wielding Guns? Why are elves not living plants? What aren't Orcs Fungus? Aren't gnomes supposed to be able to turn invisible at whim?

None of that is "shouldn't I deal +1 damage on strength attacks"

At first level you'll surely see (and at all ages, I am sure of that):
Why isn't my elf more agile than humans? Shouldn't my dwarf be sturdier than the elf? Shouldn't my half orc be stronger than this halfling? How come is my halfling less agile than the human Bob is playing? Why is my gnome... don't have any example with gnomes...
Most of the time, but not all the time (I give you that), ASI explains a lot and fills out a lot of expectations. But it does explain a lot. Whether you want it or not.

Well, PCs are already better than "normal" individuals as far as ASI are concerned, we all agree on that. 4d6k3 averages 12.25 (roughly), point-buy 12.5 (-ish), and standard array 12 average. Top that off with 2-4 points of ASI for race. Now, people discuss adding points for background/culture and even class. Most, I think, assume shifting some of the ASI around, trying to keep it at +3 or so. But, then it gets so diluted at each possible source it almost seems pointless to me. I don't know, even I have suggested such things but I've never been very keen on them.

The idea of race giving +1 to one of two, background giving +1 to one of two, and class giving +1 to one of two (or something similar) "works" but also seems so fiddly to me to wonder why even bother?

I would make it an additional point. So an Elf would get +2 dex, +1 to intel or wisdom. Then he could add an other +1 to an other stat depending on culture or background. One more + is not the end of the world, a lot of people here are rolling stats after all. But it would add a wee bit of reasons to be picky about background/culture. Just my 2cp.
But I do agree with you that it should be done with caution and careful thinking. Otherwise it would be pointless.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Okay, but they don't want to play a non-dwarf. So why should we try and "tempt" them with something like an ASI?

The current situation is either:
They play a Dwarf (which they want to do) and are a worse bard
They play a non-Dwarf (which they don't want to do) and are an effective Bard.

Why can't they play a Dwarven Bard and be as mechanically effective as if they decided to play a Dwarven Fighter?

What your "temptation" actually does is dis-incentivize people from playing Dwarven Bards. Which is why it is so rare (I have found) for those other traits that support the class to be highlighted. Those people you feel are depriving themselves of opportunities are not interested in having a 14 in their prime ability. I've seen clerics who try it (a Dragonborn and a Gnome) and they were not fun for the players, because they lost too much and gained too little.

FWIW, the very first bard anyone played at our table, incidentally, was a Dwarven Bard/ Paladin MC (stopped at 8th/8th). IIRC he started with CHA 14 and stopped at CHA 16.

Well, for one thing to try to broaden their role-playing experiences. I am mostly talking about newer players, but have seen even experienced players fall into this. I'm certainly not advocating they "have" to try something new once in a while, but IMO players get more out of the game when the do.

Also, if the loss of +1 makes a character "not fun" for a player, I think the issue lies elsewhere. At any rate, what a player gets out of playing a "sub-optimal" race for their class really depends on the player. I've gotten a lot of fun out of playing non-optimal combinations, some players don't. If that is the case, they are the ones trapped by the system. Yes, you can float them, but we both agree (see below) that you might as well just bump the systems and forget the ASI.

Sure, Mountain Dwarf armor is great. And it is specifically great for a class that doesn't get armor.

Staying with wizard, how many benefits do we get out of Halfing? Or Dragonborn or Goliath?

Sure, maybe the Goliath who has mildly higher strength has slightly better grappling... but they are a wizard, they don't want to be grappling. The Dwarven Armor is the exception, not the rule. And being mildly better at the worst things I'm not expected to do.... yay? What benefit is that for me?

Well, fine, since you asked... Halflings have nimbleness and lucky (arguably one of the most powerful racial traits in the game). Lightfoot can hide behind other PCs, exposing themselves to less danger. Stout have better CON so better concentration checks and hit points potentially. And of course, the DEX +2 helps with AC, Initiative, etc.

Dragonborn breath weapon is like another spell slot in many ways (not quite like a Burning Hands, but close), and resistance to a damage type can be no small thing. STR +2 can help in grapple situations (as you mention with goliath) but also in STR saves and keeping their feet.

With both of these, again feat selection and spell choice will help determine if the race works or not. I'm not saying such choices are optimal, but they can certainly make such Wizards competitive with races with INT +2 (or at least feel like they are still contributing to the game and fun to play).

Sure, that could work too.

Yep. But IMO PCs already have enough bonuses. I would rather remove ASI completely and have race determine maximum ability scores. THEN a gnome Wizard really would be better than a halfling (Gnome INT 20, halfling INT 18). Personally, I am totally fine with that, but I know many people aren't so... shrug