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

[Fenris-77]

If the majority of players of Dungeons and Dragons overall like the houserule, then maybe it should be the base rule and having racial ASIs should be the variant. I don't know how the statistics for that break down, but WotC seems extremely interested so I suspect they'll get the numbers and make a call based on that.

So WotC should reprint all the core rule books to change this one thing? Why on earth would they do that? Even if people did like the optional rule, it's way easier to produce a optional PDF than it is to change the core rules. This is not, IMO, something that requires a change to the core rules. It's perfectly doable on a table by table basis, is if that's your flavor, go nuts. Calling for changes to the core rules seems like an over reaction.

 

[jmartkdr2]

So WotC should reprint all the core rule books to change this one thing? Why on earth would they do that? Even if people did like the optional rule, it's way easier to produce a optional PDF than it is to change the core rules. This is not, IMO, something that requires a change to the core rules. It's perfectly doable on a table by table basis, is if that's your flavor, go nuts. Calling for changes to the core rules seems like an over reaction.

IF they decide this is the future of DnD, it won't be a core rule until 6e anyways.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I realize you two think it will open the doors. But, in reality, it will just open all the doors so they all lead to the same room. Instead of what we have now - some players choosing to walk down an empty hallway to an empty room far away and some players choosing to go through the door to the very crowded room next door.

Could you explain what you mean here?

My thesis is that without racial ASIs (or with floating ASIs; I don't really care) you would see more Half-orc rogues, and more Dwarf wizards, and more Elf fighters, and more Gnome barbarians.

Do you disagree? If so, why? If not, what do you mean by your analogy?

 

[Fenris-77]

My thesis is that without racial ASIs (or with floating ASIs; I don't really care) you would see more Half-orc rogues, and more Dwarf wizards, and more Elf fighters, and more Gnome barbarians.

I can't see a version of this story where your thesis isn't the correct one.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I can't see a version of this story where your thesis isn't the correct one.

The one counterargument I find logically sound, even if I disagree subjectively with it, is that you might not want more of those race/class combinations. At least not at the "cost" of eliminating racial ASIs (if you think that's a cost).

But then we're just arguing aesthetic preferences, which is fun but kind of pointless.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The one counterargument I find logically sound, even if I disagree subjectively with it, is that you might not want more of those race/class combinations. At least not at the "cost" of eliminating racial ASIs (if you think that's a cost).

Yes, definitely that.

But then we're just arguing aesthetic preferences, which is fun but kind of pointless.

And this also.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, I think we’ve said all that’s worth saying on this subject by now and are just reiterating the same points.

 

[Scott Christian]

I'm not in charge of 6e, and I'm not advocating for taking away people's PHBs to edit them. I'm advocating for a houserule because it solves a problem a lot of people have and does a great job of solving it.

Fair enough. And perfect. You like this as a house rule. Excellent. I am all for it too. I am happy it fits your table. But no one, until now, has mentioned they would like this as a house rule. So if it's a house rule we're discussing, I have all sorts of ideas.

 

[Fenris-77]

The one counterargument I find logically sound, even if I disagree subjectively with it, is that you might not want more of those race/class combinations. At least not at the "cost" of eliminating racial ASIs (if you think that's a cost).

But then we're just arguing aesthetic preferences, which is fun but kind of pointless.

That's easy, just make a no-go list based on the campaign theme. I don't think it's a huge deal, people do that already anyway. I would prefer to not have certain races have built-in benefits for certain classes, or maybe less benefits.

 

[Scott Christian]

Could you explain what you mean here?

My thesis is that without racial ASIs (or with floating ASIs; I don't really care) you would see more Half-orc rogues, and more Dwarf wizards, and more Elf fighters, and more Gnome barbarians.

Do you disagree? If so, why? If not, what do you mean by your analogy?

I'm sorry if that was vague. I can't stand it when people write all cryptically, and here I am doing it. My apologies.

I feel like your thesis of floating ASI's would actually make all the characters of a same class feel more like one another. This would cause the initial half-orc wizard to not feel special, because they are just like elf wizard or the halfling wizard. So while you might get more elf fighters, what you really get is more elf fighters because they are the same as a human or half-orc fighter.

My analogy is trying to say, sometimes the road less travelled is less travelled for a reason - because it's all crooked and longer. But, it doesn't make it any less fun or special to travel down, it just takes longer to get there.

Dang it! I did it again! Urgh!

Classes that are not as good are fun for many to play because they excel at things that are unexpected, while only being good at the thing they are supposed to be great at. That is a lot of fun for many of the players I know. Changing the ASI takes away that rarity and makes it the same percent as everything else.

Sorry if it is long winded. But that is what I mean. Thanks for listening.