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

[jmartkdr2]

One way I'd be OK with increasing flexibility is to get rid of subraces and just let players choose the secondary bonuses (and give some secondary bonuses to choose from to those races that do not have subraces.) It always seemed rather questionable to me that humans have cultures that do not really dictate their abilities (thank Athe!) but non-humans have weirdly specific subraces. So instead you could give gnomes +2 to Int and +1 to either Con or Dex and so forth. It would require some tinkering, but I'm sure one could make it work as pretty decent mid-point option between complete free float and the status quo.

If you go ahead and make the +1 any other ability score you get a nice compromise between floating ASIs and keeping them in place for worldbuilding.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you go ahead and make the +1 any other ability score you get a nice compromise between floating ASIs and keeping them in place for worldbuilding.

Nah. That's a step too far for me. Then the bonuses lose their evocative purpose and thus their reason for existing. The bonuses are not there to just make your character better, they're there to evoke the fact that the chosen race has a tendency for certain things.

 

[ChameleonX]

I would prefer something like a fixed +2 for the base race, and then just remove subrace bonuses and make the +1 floating. That way, each race still has a specialty, but you can still have the freedom to play against type.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Nah. That's a step too far for me. Then the bonuses lose their evocative purpose and thus their reason for existing. The bonuses are not there to just make your character better, they're there to evoke the fact that the chosen race has a tendency for certain things.

And once again we circle back to "why do pc's need to follow that tendency?"

But we're on page 32 of this thread - I'd be shocked if any good argument is out there that hasn't been made yet - in either direction.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And once again we circle back to "why do pc's need to follow that tendency?"

But we're on page 32 of this thread - I'd be shocked if any good argument is out there that hasn't been made yet - in either direction.

Because they are members of their species and follow limitations of that, just like halflings suddenly do not start to breath fire when they're PCs. Any individual exceptionalism is expressed via the point buy. This has been my answer, this is my answer still, you may not like it, but it is logically consistent. And yeah, no one is gonna change their mind.

 

[Chaosmancer]

For this exact reason I don't allow stacking the +1 from the feat with their other +1s for variant humans.

Not liking it doesn't change that it is RAW.

Again, thank you for making my point. If it is that easy for the DM to swing the odds, then why are you worried about 5%? What if the stronger character does get a +2 sword, and you don't. And they were 5% stronger to begin with. Has the DM just ruined the game?

Do note that Dm's are constantly warned about giving out magical items too early or too often, because they can upset the game balance and ruin the game.

No DM really gives a +2 or +3 sword to low level character's right? And this entire argument misses a fundamental fact. You are talking about Treasure. And treasure and rewards should be fairly even.

Legitimate story that happened to me.

We had completed an epic level story arc, and got rewarded items by some dwarven celestials from the heavens. The DM had us roll randomly for what we received.

One person got a +3 Vorpal Sword (that they had reforged into a polearm)
Another person got Blackrazor (that they returned for having their sun sword improved up to a +3 as well)
Yet another person got an oathbow

My paladin got a shield of smiles. It is a shield that has a face that can change expressions. it is a common item.

I returned it and got something better, but the point stands that that was clearly unfair, and made no sense in context. Because, the idea generally is that barring extraordinary circumstances the DM will work to balance the handing out of magic items. This is a separate concern from ASI's from races.

As for feats, you made my point. What if that stronger person chooses something not optimal? Is that allowed? Is that fighter allowed to take the Mobile feat because they want to move faster, thus allowing the weaker person to catch up in strength? What if that fighter took Alert, or heaven forbid, Linguist? I do not know the make up of your table, but I can assure you there are plenty of people out there that don't always choose the optimal feat. Heck, some don't even put their ASI in optimal stats, but instead choose to become more charismatic or intelligent, even when it doesn't serve their combat statistics. Because in the end, that is all this discussion is about.

See, I think you've hit upon something interesting though, something that I've made the point about repeatedly.

That person who took that linguist feat, chose to do so. Likely, they had a 16 or 18 in their stat, because otherwise they would likely feel the need to bump their scores. If they wanted to instead improve their character, they would pick something else. But, it would be the same character, right?


The person who is choosing their race very well might choose a race that lowers their score instead of buffing it. But, if they want to improve their class score instead they build a different character.

Where as the human fighter can choose to up strength or take linguist at level 4, if you go back to character creation your only choice is to build a different character if you want to have a solid score. That is the problem I have. It isn't about forbidding people from choosing to be less optimal, it is letting character concepts shine, even if they happen to be something that isn't optimal.

And, of the person wants to run a Gnome Barbarian with +2 INT instead of strength? Then with floating scores they can still do that. But now it is a choice they are making, not one they are being forced into by picking to play a gnome.

If I may, he is not confused. How is being able to see in the dark not advantageous for a rogue? How is Menacing not built to be a better fighter or barbarian? How is Savage Attack not built for melee classes? How does Infernal Legacy not favor a Sorcerer? How does Mask of the Wild not favor a ranger or rogue? How does Dwarven Armor or Dwarven Weapon Training not favor a melee class? How is Halfling Nimbleness not synergistic with the ranger's Favored Enemy? These are all racial abilities, and they are not class neutral.

Because seeing in the dark is also useful for everyone. Menacing can be great on a bard or warlock. Savage attack can be useful for druids. Infernal Legacy is extra spells, I'd love to have my fighter use hellish rebuke or my rogue cast darkness. Mask of the Wild is useful for anyone who wants to hide, which is usually the whole party. Dwarven weapon training can be useful for a lot of classes, especially with the new class variant monk who can make them monk weapons, and dwarven armor is more useful for casters. Halfling ability to hide behind people and ranger ability to track? Not sure where you got that one from, but since I don't see it, that helps prove the point.

A lot of these are useful universally. Sometimes more so for classes that never get to see them because of racial ASIs

The entire concept of moving ASI's because they cause players to only pick certain races because that gives them an extra 5% to their main stat seems odd to me. I do not get it. It is changing a pillar of D&D for little or no reason imho. So when it was expressed that ASI's should move, but racial traits can stay because they don't "favor" a class. I pointed out that many racial traits do favor classes, melee, spellcasters, bards, and barbarians. If you refute that these things do not favor a class, great. I can't argue that. And in fact, like to encourage that type of character construction. For example, a barbarian that hides all the time. Obviously dark vision would be beneficial for this, as one cannot hide in the dark holding a lantern or torch. One can avoid tripping on noisy things if they can see where they are stepping. But the metagamer in me knows that it benefits the rogue more because they are the ones doing most of the stealth work. So yes, I like your thinking. And if more people approached it the way you just did, then we wouldn't need to have this discussion about moving ASI's. As any bonus anywhere can help any class. My tiefling barbarian can finally use intimidation because they have a charisma bonus. They may not have optimal strength, but they have intimidation, as an example.

I'm going to take Menacing for a moment.

Proficiency in Intimidation is +2 at level 1, double the bonus from a slightly higher Cha.

So, the Half-Orc Barbarian has better hp, ac, attack, damage, an extra skill, and better crits.

Your tielfing has spells (useful, but 1/day) and better charisma, which only translates into better Intimidation if you took the skill. And you are worse at everything a barbarian is supposed to be good at.


So, you sacrificed 5% attack, damage, hp, and AC for maybe +5% on intimidation, which if the table runs with letting you use strength to intimidate, you actually don't even have.

But, dang it, a Tielfing Barbarian fueled by the rage of Phlegethos is coool. I want to play that character, but there is literally no good reason too other than theme. And a theme that isn't backed up by the game system is just going to leave me frustrated and wishing I had just played the better option.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because they are members of their species and follow limitations of that, just like halflings suddenly do not start to breath fire when they're PCs. Any individual exceptionalism is expressed via the point buy. This has been my answer, this is my answer still, you may not like it, but it is logically consistent. And yeah, no one is gonna change their mind.

Why do you always got to fire breath? you could just as easily ask why do Halflings not suddenly get the ability to climb walls. Or why don't halflings suddenly get the ability to swing hammers. Or why don't halflings suddenly get proficiency in brewing alcohol. Or why don't halflings suddenly get the ability do cast a wizard cantrip.

All of those are racial traits too

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why do you always got to fire breath? you could just as easily ask why do Halflings not suddenly get the ability to climb walls. Or why don't halflings suddenly get the ability to swing hammers. Or why don't halflings suddenly get proficiency in brewing alcohol. Or why don't halflings suddenly get the ability do cast a wizard cantrip.

All of those are racial traits too

It doesn't alter the argument. Yes, halflings can learn some of those things by choosing certain feats or classes. Halflings can also raise any ability via point buy and later raise them via feats/ASIs gained from levelling. But they don't get to swap their 'Halfling Nimbleness' to a wizard cantrip or hammer proficiency. So yeah, thanks for strengthening my point.

 

[Scott Christian]

But as someone who has seen this problem, and who sees it as a problem (as in: I've seen players choose not to play a character they thought would be interesting because the numbers didn't line up) - I've found that the solution (floating mods) fixes the problem with no downsides.

Maybe this doesn't fly at your table, but why not just say: Great character idea. You should run with it. If the negative impact of 5% bothers you too much, let's let the characters go on a quest to upgrade: maybe a training book? an ancient monk and a year's worth of training? maybe a specific magic item? maybe a pact with a demon?
Why not encourage the player instead of changing one of the pillars of the game?

 

[jmartkdr2]

Maybe this doesn't fly at your table, but why not just say: Great character idea. You should run with it. If the negative impact of 5% bothers you too much, let's let the characters go on a quest to upgrade: maybe a training book? an ancient monk and a year's worth of training? maybe a specific magic item? maybe a pact with a demon?
Why not encourage the player instead of changing one of the pillars of the game?

1. Because sometimes I'm not the dm so none of those things are within my power to do.
2. Because even when I am the dm it's easier to let them start with the character they want and just play the game rather than force certain things to happen in-game to let them do so.
3. Because many of those involve changing the character which they may not want to do.

and 4. because I don't see any downside. Whatsoever. And that isn't hypothetical: in practice, the times that I've played with this rule, there is no negative side effect. At all.

You keep talking about a 'pillar of the game' but neither combat, exploration, nor social interactions (let alone roleplaying, game balance or any narrative element of the game, or even worldbuilding or how people perceive the various races in the game) are negatively impacted by simply swapping where the starting ability score bonuses go.

The only difference is somewhat greater variety of characters.

Is your argument that without racial ability score increases the game completely falls apart? That it stops being Dungeons and Dragons? Because over the course of this thread I think you'll see that quite a few people just do not see that as true. Indeed, my experience has been that it's the opposite of true: the game just runs better without them.