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

[Crimson Longinus]

While you have a point I think the design of 5E changed some of those and how we can represent them.

For instance, "hardy" dwarves could be expanded to not just Poison for Dwarven Resilience, but other things as well, and even conditions, or giving dwarves a free level of exhaustion. Orcs could have been a race with powerful build, or even more grant them advantage on STR checks X times per long rest? Maybe orcs could add their proficiency bonus (or double it) when making STR checks instead of advantage?

There are a bunch of mechanics already in the game that are under-utilized IMO and many racial traits could use them. I think they would be more imaginative than simply an ASI.

These sort of kludges are not good game desisgn. There are six ability scores and their sole functions and reason for their existence is measure a creature's capabilities on those axis. Introducing parallel mechanics to measure same things differently will disassociate the ability scores and create confusing rule clutter.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have heard a fair amount about expanding the racial abilities in lieu of ASIs to make each race feel unique. What would that look like? Anyone have ideas in that direction?

I just have general ideas of it. I’m not sure you could do that easily and still reinforce the tropes.

 

[jmartkdr2]

You can at least understand others feel differently. Why insist on a change that’s going to detract from the game for them?

I'm having a hard time understanding how an elf who's really tough and not very nimble is detracting form the game for anyone, honestly.

 

[DND_Reborn]

When you leave off half my quote you leave off half my point. I addressed all this in the part you left off.

And I am showing you (and others) examples of how that can be done.

My first line was more to the point that STR in 5E is not just about being strong or powerful, it is about the PC's ability to exert the strength they have. This is why I have no issue with a halfling having a STR 20, what I do have issue with is how much that number means they can carry and such--which doesn't fit for a small race IMO.

That's all. I wasn't disagreeing with you or anything, just expounding.

 

[FrogReaver]

While you have a point I think the design of 5E changed some of those and how we can represent them.

For instance, "hardy" dwarves could be expanded to not just Poison for Dwarven Resilience, but other things as well, and even conditions, or giving dwarves a free level of exhaustion. Orcs could have been a race with powerful build, or even more grant them advantage on STR checks X times per long rest? Maybe orcs could add their proficiency bonus (or double it) when making STR checks instead of advantage?

There are a bunch of mechanics already in the game that are under-utilized IMO and many racial traits could use them. I think they would be more imaginative than simply an ASI.

The hardy dwarf trope isn’t because they better resist poison.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm having a hard time understanding how an elf who's really tough and not very nimble is detracting form the game for anyone, honestly.

It’s not. You can make one today.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The hardy dwarf trope isn’t because they better resist poison.

LOL ok, now it's my turn... did you read the rest of my post?

"hardy" dwarves could be expanded to not just Poison for Dwarven Resilience, but other things as well, and even conditions, or giving dwarves a free level of exhaustion.

All those other options certainly would make for a "hardy" race IMO. YMMV.

 

[Charlaquin]

You can at least understand others feel differently. Why insist on a change that’s going to detract from the game for them?

I can understand that others feel differently, though I do not (yet) understand why they feel differently. And I insist on a change because I believe it would improve the overall quality of the game. You can’t please everyone of course, but I believe that removing racial ASIs would be more pleasing to more people.

 

[Charlaquin]

My personal take is that I'd split the difference here. Ability score bonuses are the most impactful distinction between the races, because they channel the race into certain class choices which then indirectly provides a lot of flavor.

But the flavor it provides is a bad flavor. It tastes like biological essentialism. I don’t like the way that tastes.

But I'd certainly argue that the biggest distinction between races is simply our shared tropes and knowledge of what the race is supposed to represent, and those could be easily represented by non-numerical features.

On that front I am with you.

 

[Guest 6801328]

What's anti-thematic about a planar powered race picking a divinely powered class? Paladins being good is kind of an old-school thing, and also I think a lot of people find the dichotomy between "evil" race and "good" class to be compelling.

My personal guess is that a lot of people simply like tieflings, and the most obvious choice for tieflings is warlock (if they want a caster) and paladin (if they want a martial).

I was using “thematic” as shorthand for the classic archetypes: elven archers, half-orc barbarians, human paladins, etc.

But used your way (which is better, really) then basically any combination is thematic, so that also undermines the original argument.