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

[Crimson Longinus]

rolled stats, which is the most popular method of generating stats.

[citation needed]

 

[Charlaquin]

[citation needed]

I don’t know if it’s the most popular or not, but I do know there’s a significant number of players who prefer it, and it is technically the method 5e presents as the default.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You are trying for a simulationist perspective. Drop that and approach from a gamist perspective.

Character creation is not about making all possible characters, it becomes about making a party of characters that are roughly balanced to be able to play together and all contribute.

I'm an anti-simulationist, and this argument still makes no sense. Character creation is part of world building. It needs to make sense.

... It’s character creation. So whatever the thing you are complaining about isn’t verisimilitude.

The dichotomy that you're implying doesn't exist.

 

[jmartkdr2]

[citation needed]

You know, I could have sworn there was a survey that found that.

Anyways, it's popular enough that a method for solving a problem with ability score generation that doesn't work for the default method isn't a complete solution.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, just to play around with some hypotheticals here. Let’s say a DM decides for their home game to drop racial ASIs and roll them into the ability generation rules instead of offering floating ASIs. And let’s say they want rolling, array, and point buy all to be options. How might they go about this?

Obviously standard array is the easiest to resolve this with, by simply increasing some of the numbers, but what would the improved array look like? Do we just bump the two highest scores by +2 and +1 respectively for 17, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8? Do we try to prioritize getting even numbers and go with 16, 16, 13, 12, 10, 8? Or 16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 8?

For point buy, we just increase number of points, presumably to match the starting array. So, what, 32 points? 33?

Incorporating the increases to rolled stats is obviously the most difficult option to pull off. What if we kept the dice code of 4d6 drop lowest, but maybe you roll 7 times and drop the lowest of those or something? Would that produce results that averaged close to our increased array? My math powers are not strong enough to tell.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is what I don't understand. You are saying that a 5% difference is enough to alter the game, force the hand of many people to change the conception of their character (one they might play for years), and change the long standing rules of the game.

5%?! One magic item - boom, that 5% difference is gone. Multi attack, boom the difference is gone. Any hosts of feats, boom the difference is gone. Oh man, the cleric gave the other party members a bless spell, now my 5% is really really gone! Sneak attack, now my damage is not 5% better than the rogues, dang it, my 5% is gone.

That is why I do not understand your side of the argument. I understand if someone wants to get rid of ASI's because they feel it reflects real world problems. I understand and sympathize with that. But to say rework the entire system for 5% because the min/maxers want things balanced in a game that is already unbalanced - I cannot understand that. Especially knowing how intelligent everyone on these boards happen to be.

So you will have to forgive me. I do not understand.

PS - I do understand that it is not exactly 5%. I am using that as a standard basis for a +1 modifier.

This seems to be because your thinking on this is incredibly narrow.

A +1 magic item? Unless you are a warlock, there are no +1 magic items that give an increase to your spell DC. There are no magic items that let you prepare +1 spells. Additionally, you are assuming the weaker player gets a magic item, and the stronger one doesn't. If it is the reverse, then the difference rises. If they both get a magic item, then the difference stays static. Finally, the game does not assume magic items, and neither do a lot of players. I very often do not give out items with bonuses, instead giving out items with abilities. So the 5% stays.

Multi-Attack? I assume you mean extra attack. So, if we are again talking about two people with the same build, then they both got Extra attack, so I have no idea why you think that removes the difference. Also, casters don't get extra attack as a general rule, so the wizard or cleric does not benefit from this at all.

any host of feats? You mean you took a feat or an ASI? Great, that means the other person did too. So, unless they chose a feat that does not give any bump, and you chose a half-feat (of which there is at least one of each score if you don't mind bending your concept a little) then you are behind. And, like I showed. If both of you increase your score? You are behind. If they pick a feat and you just increase your score, you are behind. The best scenario is them taking a feat that does not benefit the build (giving them versatility) and you have a perfect half-feat to increase your score and get a useful ability. But, feats are so variable it is hard to measure the exact impact.

If the cleric blessed you, then they are buffing you, and that buff would be more powerful if you had better scores... I don't even... ah wait. The rogue gets sneak attack and now your damage isn't better? I see what happened here.


I'm not comparing the Fighter to the Rogue. Or the Wizard to the Bard. I'm comparing them to themselves. I'm comparing a Rogue with 14 Dex to a Rogue with 16 Dex. So, that sneak attack, both builds got it, in the exact same amount, at the exact same time. 14 Dex rogue is still behind 16 Dex rogue. Now sure, maybe it is less obvious if there aren't two rogues at the table, but everyone can do this basic math, and in my expeirence, players with 14's in their main stat are noticeably less effective. I've run a few different character's (player and DM) where this occurred and it was always noticeable.

Then just don't allow goliaths at all. Either do it properly or not at all. In theory an unusually small and sickly dragon could be balanced but those are not allowed either as it would be both unsatisfactory to the players and paint a strange and misleading picture of the dragons.

Then you have to drop everything. Because Variant Humans can be as (Strong/Graceful/Charismatic/Intelligent/Wise/Perceptive/Tough) as any +2 race.

Dwarves are exceptionally tough... as long as you don't count tough humans
Elves are exceptionally graceful... as long as you don't count graceful humans
Gnomes are exceptionally smart.... as long as you don't count smart humans.


So, if that is an issue for you, then you have to drop every single race right now, because that is the current state of the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

Incorporating the increases to rolled stats is obviously the most difficult option to pull off. What if we kept the dice code of 4d6 drop lowest, but maybe you roll 7 times and drop the lowest of those or something? Would that produce results that averaged close to our increased array? My math powers are not strong enough to tell.

Never mind, I went ahead and ran that on any dice. It produces an average set of 15.86, 14.49, 13.39, 12.37, 11.30, 10.05, and 8.25. Dropping the 8.25 and rounding to the nearest whole number, that would produce an array of 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10. Which, amusingly, happens to be the 4e standard array. Make that the boosted standard array and make point buy 32 points (removing the cap of 15)? Or maybe go full 4e and have a 22 point buy with the starting abilities at 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 instead of all 8s?

Would that be satisfactory to the folks who voted to roll racial ASIs into ability score generation?

 

[FrogReaver]

A lot of us aren't gamists and don't want to be.

IMO, When it comes to character creation You already are.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm an anti-simulationist, and this argument still makes no sense. Character creation is part of world building. It needs to make sense.


The dichotomy that you're implying doesn't exist.

Player Character creation does make sense. You can make any character you want as long as it falls into the specified mechanical parameters (always gamist). That’s all player character building ever is. There’s not a single character creation system that doesn’t do this.

 

[Helldritch]

Never mind, I went ahead and ran that on any dice. It produces an average set of 15.86, 14.49, 13.39, 12.37, 11.30, 10.05, and 8.25. Dropping the 8.25 and rounding to the nearest whole number, that would produce an array of 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10. Which, amusingly, happens to be the 4e standard array. Make that the boosted standard array and make point buy 31 points (removing the cap of 15)?

Would that be satisfactory to the folks who voted to roll racial ASIs into ability score generation?

Not bad.
But if we go this way, I would like to see all stat maxed out at 18 save for.
Dragonborn: St 20
Dwarf: Con 20
Elf: Dex 20
Gnome: Intel 20
Halfling: Dex 20
Half-orc (or orc): St 20
Tiefling: Cha 20

This would go well with no races have bonuses to wisdom. All mortals are foolish afterall.