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

[Micah Sweet]

Have you tried having the players collectively roll ons set of 6 scores and making that the array? That would incorporate the excitement of random score generation while keeping the players’ scores all balanced against each other.

I’ve considered running a game where you have the option to roll or take the array, but if you roll you have to roll in order, whereas with the array you can assign the numbers wherever you want. Essentially, if you have a concept in mind to begin with, you use the array to tailor your scores to that concept, or if you want to generate your character randomly you roll in order and see what you get.

Interesting idea. One of the reasons I like rolling is the concept that a person in real life doesn't get to choose everything about themselves, so a little bit of random helps make the process of character creation feel more real to me. Your idea would potentially preserve some of that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Rolling seven scores and dropping one would increase this.

FWIW, this produces an average score of 12.9 (roughly) with your typical scores being:

15.8
14.4
13.4
12.4
11.3
10.0
8.2

So, rolling 7 scores and dropping the lowest works well in getting about the same as remove ASIs. It is certainly close enough I would adopt it.

Dropping the 8.2 (or lowest result in general) gives you an approximate array of 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, which would be about a 32-point-buy, and you could even use that as the standard array.

EDIT: due to rounding, you might want to bump the 14, 13, or 12 up one point (I would suggest the 12 to 13 myself) and bump point-buy to 33. It isn't a major issue to me, but others might want it.

 

[Charlaquin]

FWIW, this produces an average score of 12.9 (roughly) with your typical scores being:

15.8
14.4
13.4
12.4
11.3
10.0
8.2

So, rolling 7 scores and dropping the lowest works well in getting about the same as remove ASIs. It is certainly close enough I would adopt it.

Dropping the 8.2 (or lowest result in general) gives you an approximate array of 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, which would be about a 32-point-buy, and you could even use that as the standard array.

Yeah, I think I’m going to try this in place of racial ASIs in my next campaign. Though, my players generally don’t like rolling and most of them will probably just take the array.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Man, I keep checking and hoping voter 150 will come along... but no luck so far!

Come on, voter #150, I know you're out there somewhere!

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm back! I know, you're so excited.

Been thinking about this off-line, and have the following thoughts about some of the arguments being used:

1. Both sides have been trying to play it both ways on the value of the ASI. That is, that +2 to a primary stat is important to one's own argument, but the other side is making too big a deal out of it. So that argument is a dead-end and should be dropped.
2. As mentioned previously, "If you are worried about optimizers, don't play with them" is analogous to "If you're worried about a super-strong gnome, ask your table not to do that." So toss both those arguments.
3. The argument that most campaigns don't go past level 10, thus races without an ASI will never be as strong/smart/quick/charming as races that have them, and thus orc PCs really are stronger than gnome PCs is in conflict with the argument that a floating ASI is "dissociative" because it makes it possible that a gnome will be strong, regardless of whether or not you actually play with a gnome who puts his ASI there. Either the possibilities inherent in the rules are dissociative, regardless of whether or not the dissociative possibility is encountered at the table, or they are not. Can't have it both ways.
4. Expanding on #3 above, it currently is possible for all races to achieve a 20 in any attribute. So I find the position that allowing races to start out with equal scores would suddenly become dissociative to be highly...unconvincing. If there were also racial maximums (which I'm not in favor of) I would see the argument. But there aren't.
5. Regarding simulationism, if this were really simulationist, goliaths would have +6 strength (at least?) over halflings, not that piddling +2, that can disappear while leveling. So it's not really simulationist; it's more of a symbolic nod to simulationism in earlier editions.
6. Points 4 and 5 in turn make me wonder if the passionate defense of racial ASIs has less to do with, well, actual game impact, and is really just more of an emotional line in the sand. For somebody who strongly believes that attribute scores should reflect the lore differences the current system has got to be entirely unsatisfactory. It doesn't really accomplish that goal at all. And to get rid of that last, vestigal remnant of racial differences would be a blow, even if the effect at the table would be essentially invisible. If this is going on, I am sympathetic. I'm bummed that Paladins don't have to be Lawful Good and have really high prerequisites (even if that's terrible game design) so I get it.
7. And, finally, I have to wonder if for some people (not everybody) the anti-racial-ASI thing feels like political correctness run amok. First they get rid of gender differences, and now they want to get rid of racial differences!?!?! What's next? Re-education camps? This occurs to me because I've been continually bewildered by all the statements to the effect of "Without racial ASIs we are all just playing humans with masks". WTF? As somebody who finds the non-ASI racial abilities to be more flavorful and evocative, that has made no sense to me. So I gotta wonder if there's some other agenda lurking underneath those claims. (Plus there's the assumption, that keeps reappearing, that those of us opposed to racial ASIs must be opposed to all racial abilities, when in fact for many of us the opposite is true; we want more non-ASI racial abilities.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm back! I know, you're so excited.

I was... until I realized you weren't going to be voter #150. (j/k)

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm back! I know, you're so excited.

I was tracking pretty close to you until I got to your last point.

I'm not against racial ASIs because of a weird political agenda..
Unless it is weird and political to want my character's personal experiences and backstory to influence his abilities.

But apart from that? Yeah, I think I agree.

 

[Charlaquin]

1. Both sides have been trying to play it both ways on the value of the ASI. That is, that +2 to a primary stat is important to one's own argument, but the other side is making too big a deal out of it. So that argument is a dead-end and should be dropped.

This one makes sense though, because one side perceives the +2 as having minimal mechanical value but high conceptual value and the other side perceives the opposite. To me, starting with a 14 vs. a 16 strength doesn’t really mean anything in terms of how I picture the race’s muscle mass relative to other races, but it does have a significant impact on my feeling of the character’s effectiveness as a strength-based class. To someone like Crimson Longinus, the opposite is probably the case. That’s also not a difference I think there’s any hope of resolving.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I was tracking pretty close to you until I got to your last point.

I'm not against racial ASIs because of a weird political agenda..
Unless it is weird and political to want my character's personal experiences and backstory to influence his abilities.

But apart from that? Yeah, I think I agree.

Oh, yeah. To be clear, I’m not suggesting everybody, or even anybody in particular, has a political agenda in this case. But given the sentiments expressed in other threads, I’m just wondering if this might be a factor.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This one makes sense though, because one side perceives the +2 as having minimal mechanical value but high conceptual value and the other side perceives the opposite. To me, starting with a 14 vs. a 16 strength doesn’t really mean anything in terms of how I picture the race’s muscle mass relative to other races, but it does have a significant impact on my feeling of the character’s effectiveness as a strength-based class. To someone like Crimson Longinus, the opposite is probably the case. That’s also not a difference I think there’s any hope of resolving.

yes. The argument makes sense to each side for the reason you state, but the distinction is subjective.