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

[Charlaquin]

This makes no sense to me.

Trends, generalities, averages? These are the domain of NPCs. If the average Goliath NPC is stronger than the average halfling NPC... That just makes sense. If all Goliath PCs are inherently better suited to being Barbarians than all halfling PCs are, then even the exceptional examples of these races are limited to the roles their race makes them fit for, and that’s an implication I find unpleasant.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So there are two takes to Player Characters.

1. The PC is exceptional and normal racial rules don’t apply.

2. The PC exists as a member of race X and that races proclivities and strengths help inform the PC’s abilities.

Neither way is right or wrong necessarily. But it has nothing to do with biological essentialism or races being as good or as smart as others. The question is one of what the PC represents. This is why I think a variant rule would work well here.

Definitely camp 2 for me. Sure, they may be somewhat exceptional, but that is represented by the generous point buy. They don't suddenly eschew all normal qualities of their species.

 

[Charlaquin]

So there are two takes to Player Characters.

1. The PC is exceptional and normal racial rules don’t apply.

2. The PC exists as a member of race X and that races proclivities and strengths help inform the PC’s abilities.

Neither way is right or wrong necessarily. But it has nothing to do with biological essentialism or races being as good or as smart as others. The question is one of what the PC represents. This is why I think a variant rule would work well here.

Yeah, I think a variant rule is exactly what WotC said is coming, and I’m excited for that because I think it will be the best way to satisfy both camps.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I thought it was a given that we were talking about PCs, because that’s who race ASIs are for.

Are they?

Are dwarven NPCs in the books not possessed of higher average Con?

If you have a commoner, you don’t add racial traits to it based on what race it is?

My experience is that it would be very unusual to have NPCs not reflect the writeup for their race at all. A given dwarven npc might be sickly, but usually that dwarf still has a higher con than a sickly halfling, IME.

 

[Charlaquin]

Are they?

Are dwarven NPCs in the books not possessed of higher average Con?

If they are it’s because their stat blocks are written this way, not because of the Ability Score Increase feature in the PC race. If you took said feature away, dwarf NPC stat blocks would still have higher than average con.

If you have a commoner, you don’t add racial traits to it based on what race it is?

Not according to the rules in the monster manual. A DM can certainly choose to do so if they wish, and I often do, but it’s not a rule.

My experience is that it would be very unusual to have NPCs not reflect the writeup for their race at all. A given dwarven npc might be sickly, but usually that dwarf still has a higher con than a sickly halfling, IME.

Yeah, I agree with that. I just don’t think PCs should be bound by that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you took said feature away, dwarf NPC stat blocks would still have higher than average con.

I completely disagree. I think the idea you posit here is completely out of left field.

The dwarf has higher con because dwarfs in general have higher con. PC, NPC, all that changes is the specific methodology used to get there. In both cases, the dwarf has higher Con because the definition of the dwarf people is the writeup in the phb. Obviously part of that writeup is the bonus to Con. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The dwarf is, in part, defined by being hardier than other folk, which is represented primarily in D&D by their Con score.

Not according to the rules in the monster manual. A DM can certainly choose to do so if they wish, and I often do, but it’s not a rule.

not sure I see how this is even relevant?

Yeah, I agree with that. I just don’t think PCs should be bound by that.

I mean, they barely are. The disadvantage on attacks with heavy weapons is a vastly bigger hindrance to the halfling barbarian

 

[Istbor]

Move it all to class and background. Other games do it that way and work alright.

Better illustrates where your characters focus came from rather than something lame. Like, "Well I am a big brute, guess I will have to become a soldier rather than pursue my love of botany. Plus, wouldn't being a fighter/druid/cleric/wizard make you stronger, or wiser, or more intelligent just by virtue of always practicing and using skills dependent on those attributes more?

I also find it more fun when I can play whatever creature I want without having the game mechanics punish me because I want a kobold warrior or a Dragonborn rogue.

 

[FrogReaver]

I completely disagree. I think the idea you posit here is completely out of left field.

The dwarf has higher con because dwarfs in general have higher con. PC, NPC, all that changes is the specific methodology used to get there. In both cases, the dwarf has higher Con because the definition of the dwarf people is the writeup in the phb. Obviously part of that writeup is the bonus to Con. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The dwarf is, in part, defined by being hardier than other folk, which is represented primarily in D&D by their Con score.

not sure I see how this is even relevant?



I mean, they barely are. The disadvantage on attacks with heavy weapons is a vastly bigger hindrance to the halfling barbarian

If I may step in and argue for a position I don’t take for a moment:

If PCs are purely exceptional then you can generate all their stats identically. The racial part could be viewed as being included in that or as not applying at all because of background - whichever your prefer.

You aren’t actually losing the racial stat bonus implications unless you choose to view it that way.

Think of stats more like abstractions. You generate your stats the same way but they are some unquantified combination of race, culture, background and class.

 

[Scott Christian]

And that bolded part is the point. It is incredibly hard to quantify racial traits and their usefulness. They rely on a lot of factors, and are different pressures.

But a +2 to your main attack stat or save stat is good. Always. And easy to quantify.

So, the idea that people who are feeling that pressure will suddenly switch to doing the same thing with abilities that are so hard to quantify, mystifies me.

I am sorry. I do not understand. Are we working with the same point buy system? (Or are you rolling stats?) I mean, you can still have the same score by 8th level. By fourth level, certain feats could outweigh any difference in successful attacks and damage. By fifth level, a class's power boost can set them so far apart from another class's attack hit/damage ratio it's absurd (think of a fighter's second attack). And by eighth level, most people are at 19. Literally, 2/5 into the game. This doesn't even bring into consideration magic items. If it is that disconcerting, should we also negate the use of items that offer a +1, or +2 or even a +3? So I do not understand, how does having that +2 that is quantifiable better?

And as far as the skills go. If you have a DM where skills rarely matter, then you should try to educate the DM on such a fun part of the game. They may enjoy expanding their DM'ing approach, kind of like an artist working with new paints or a musician with a new instrument.

 

[Charlaquin]

I completely disagree. I think the idea you posit here is completely out of left field.

Compare the bugbear monster stat block to the PC race. You‘ll notice that the monster stat block has a feature called Brute that the PC race lacks, and the PC race has a feature called Long Arms that the monster stat block lacks. These sorts of discrepancies between NPC stat blocks and PC races are quite common, and the Ability Score Increase feature is no exception. Heck, the default commoner NPC stat block is human, but it has 10s across the board, so clearly neither the default human +1 to all ability scores nor the variant human +1 to 2 ability scores has been applied to it. Unless you’re assuming Commoners have 9s across the board by default, in which case do your dwarf commoners have 11 Con, 10 Wis or 11 Str and 9s in everything else?

The dwarf has higher con because dwarfs in general have higher con. PC, NPC, all that changes is the specific methodology used to get there. In both cases, the dwarf has higher Con because the definition of the dwarf people is the writeup in the phb. Obviously part of that writeup is the bonus to Con. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The dwarf is, in part, defined by being hardier than other folk, which is represented primarily in D&D by their Con score.

Right, and my argument is that I don’t think Con score is a good way to define that for PCs.

not sure I see how this is even relevant?

Neither am I, but you asked so I answered.

I mean, they barely are. The disadvantage on attacks with heavy weapons is a vastly bigger hindrance to the halfling barbarian

That’s true, but at least it actually affects how halflings play instead of just changing their numbers when they do exactly the same stuff.