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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Min-maxing will end when you either get rid of the min-maxers or when you get rid of any measurable mechanical differences. I'll rather do the former and I don't want the latter to be inflicted upon the game because some people take winning in their elf games too seriously. (Which in itself would't be a problem, but demanding the game to be changed because you are unable to resist the temptation to min-max kinda is.)

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.

Their clerics and bards are different. Orc's strength and constitution is very valuable for clerics, elven dexterity for bards. Stop fixating on one aspect of the class.

And the lore you are trying to simulate is barely existent.

Barely is better than not at all. That rules do something badly is not argument for making the rules do it even worse.

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.

They do have those classes. Nothing is stopping you from making such a character. They get benefits other than the main stat bumb. And sure, that might not be quite as good, but that's not a big deal.

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.

It indeed is a problem if people think that powergaming guides are instructions of making a fun character for make believe.

 

[Maxperson]

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 don't think class should give a stat bonus. I think it should be race +1, subrace +1 and background +1, which still leaves it +2 race, +1 background. Not too fiddly. That leads up to the PC's choice of class, which happens just prior to adventuring.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I've been debating letting the racial bonuses raise the stat cap past 20. So a high elf would have have a cap of 22 Dex and 21 Int.

 

[Scott Christian]

The game’s rules are disproportionately focused on combat, and skills do matter. There is nothing contradictory about those two statements. Accordingly, any discussion of the game’s design is bound to be similarly focused on mechanics. That doesn’t mean skills don’t matter, they are just a proportionally lesser focus.

That is actually my point. They are not proportionally lesser of a focus. And, even if we say they are, the fact that they are left out of the debate makes the debate narrowly focused. For, if they matter, as you say they do, they are also intrinsic in the debate about how to appropriate racial bonuses. Perhaps, we should look at all the wisdom skills versus the intelligence skills and then apply them to the races, and see which one fairs better or is askew? Just a thought.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't think class should give a stat bonus. I think it should be race +1, subrace +1 and background +1, which still leaves it +2 race, +1 background. Not too fiddly. That leads up to the PC's choice of class, which happens just prior to adventuring.

Sure, that would be fine I suppose. It would also make it so if the +2 from race was in the same score (maybe?) then that subrace could cap at 20 if everything else capped at 18... which is something I would like anyway.

I don't think class is the place to put it, but I do like background. However, as it was pointed out, since technically backgrounds are customizable, that +1 really is a floater.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I've been debating letting the racial bonuses raise the stat cap past 20. So a high elf would have have a cap of 22 Dex and 21 Int.

I'm more inclined to make caps 18 and then +2 ASIs (only) can bump them to 20. So, my high elf wold have caps of DEX 20, but 18 for INT and everything else.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, that would be fine I suppose. It would also make it so if the +2 from race was in the same score (maybe?) then that subrace could cap at 20 if everything else capped at 18... which is something I would like anyway.

I don't think class is the place to put it, but I do like background. However, as it was pointed out, since technically backgrounds are customizable, that +1 really is a floater.

I'm okay with a +1 floating bonus. As long as you still have races being distinct with stat bonuses, a floating +1 is fine by me. I think most people would put it in with one of their other bonuses anyway. That's why I wouldn't want the race and subrace to be in the same stat. It would enable +3 in a single stat which would be a bit much I think.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I am confused. If you come across a creature you have never fought before, say something out of a splat book, and ask your DM if you can roll nature to determine if it has a weakness or immunity, he would say no? Or did I accidentally imply rolling nature would increase our damage. If I did write it that way, sorry.

And good points about every player rolling combat. As far as classes go, yes you are right. But it falls back on the DM. I mean, the mayor or captain of the guards might choose to speak to a specific character because of their class or race. I think it would be quite awkward to suddenly have a big fighter suddenly be quiet so his younger brother bard can speak. In fact, the captain of the guards would probably lose respect for him, and in the end, the roll may be more difficult. I know it is one example, but I feel like there are many like that: from traps to travelling to scouting. But, I may just have great DM's too. I've played at tables where it is monolithic. Still fun, but not as fun.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm okay with a +1 floating bonus. As long as you still have races being distinct with stat bonuses, a floating +1 is fine by me. I think most people would put it in with one of their other bonuses anyway. That's why I wouldn't want the race and subrace to be in the same stat. It would enable +3 in a single stat which would be a bit much I think.

Sure, no +3! I don't mind a race doubling-up on the +1s, but then the floater would have to go someplace else.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

Weren’t you telling me that “play with people who won’t use the rules in a way you don’t like” doesn’t really make up for flawed rules?

(Also, at the risk of thread derailment, optimization isn’t the same as min-maxing.)