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

[Crimson Longinus]

I disagree. A thing doesn’t have to be suboptimal to be unique or surprising.

Your goal was to allow any race to be (roughly) equally good in any build. Thus in such a situation any race in any build by definition could not be surprising.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don’t buy this line of argument that rules at 12+ aren’t relevant because “most” games don’t go that high. If something is wrong with the rules, then something is wrong with the rules. What, people who play at higher levels don’t matter?

Furthermore, if we want to say that only statistically “normal” games matter, then you don’t have to worry about immersion-breaking 17 strength halflings and gnomes, because most games don’t have halfling or gnome fighters and barbarians, as we know from the data.

Eh, I'm not trying to go in circles anymore on this. I've replied to this before. There isn't anything wrong with the rules at high level, they just don't impact normal ideas about who each of the races are and their place in worldbuilding. No one who supports keeping racial ASIs due to their impact on worldbuilding and expectations about each people group of dnd is going to be convinced by "they can even out at high level anyway". What absolute number is on the character sheet isn't the point, and only impacts the point at the levels where most play occurs.

Again, it's not that "they could eventually have the same score" bothers me, I don't care. It's that I support keeping the dynamic where most goliaths you see in game will be stronger than most halflings, even of the same class.


Also, we know that most groups have halflings and gnomes and other races. You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding the data, on that. Most players play humans, but whole parties with only humans is far from the norm. I didn't comment on fighters and barbarians as relevant to this discussion, so I'm not sure why they would be relevant here. Again, remember that you aren't talking to someone who is arguing against floating ASIs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

2) If any race can be anything. You will see that in the end. All characters made by a player will be from the same races all the time. I have a player that would only do elves. An other that would only do dwarves. But because of ASI, they have to change their normal behavior for the sake of being "better". Yet, I still see characters that are out of the ordinary exactly because it can be surprising. The dwarven wizard is such an example.

No, you won't. A few players will always play elves or whatever, and more power to them, but others will continue to play a wide range, and still others will play more of a wide range because they always play rogues and more races can be "good" rogues.

 

[Charlaquin]

And yet, it is a fact. A halfling barbarian will have a harder time than an half-orc barb. But he will be able to be a functional member of the group in 5ed. The ASI are not punishing enough to prevent such a build.

Depends on the player. It’s certainly punishing enough to prevent many players from choosing to play such a build (athough really with Small races the disadvantage with Heavy weapons is probably a bigger barrier to playing a barbarian than the ASI.)

2) If any race can be anything. You will see that in the end.

I’ll see what? Fast food restaurants? You haven’t actually explained the metaphor.

All characters made by a player will be from the same races all the time. I have a player that would only do elves. An other that would only do dwarves.

If that’s what those players want to play, why not let them? Why punish them for wanting to pair their favorite race with a class they aren’t usually seen with?

But because of ASI, they have to change their normal behavior for the sake of being "better". Yet, I still see characters that are out of the ordinary exactly because it can be surprising. The dwarven wizard is such an example.

Of course you’ll still see such combinations sometimes. Some players are less bothered by the difference ASIs make than others. But if you took the ASIs away, you’d see more such combinations, which in my opinion would be a good thing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Your goal was to allow any race to be (roughly) equally good in any build. Thus in such a situation any race in any build by definition could not be surprising.

You can be surprised by things that aren’t suboptimal. A player could decide to play, I don’t know, an Aarakocra warlock of the Lurker in the Deep, and that combination might surprise me, not because it’s bad but because it’s unexpected.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You can be surprised by things that aren’t suboptimal. A player could decide to play, I don’t know, an Aarakocra warlock of the Lurker in the Deep, and that combination might surprise me, not because it’s bad but because it’s unexpected.

Why it is unexpected? I mean any more than any other randomly chosen combination?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Your goal was to allow any race to be (roughly) equally good in any build. Thus in such a situation any race in any build by definition could not be surprising.

Doesn't follow. Optimisation is not the only source of expectation.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Doesn't follow. Optimisation is not the only source of expectation.

Sure, I guess. But they affect each other. Like the tropes we associate with certain races have at least partly been moulded over the years by rules supporting those tropes. The first strength 17 halfling berserker or super smart ork wizard might be surprising the next seven thousand of them wont. And once it becomes the norm that every race is equally good at everything it will affect how people think about them and what tropes they associate with them.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Let us say I want to play an Elf Barbarian. Why? Not because I want to min-max, but because I find the story potentials of an elven barbarian interesting. I can imagine some very interesting roles and thoughts from someone who has lived 200 years in the same forest, cut off from civilization.

However, that doesn't mean I want to be a bad Barbarian. In fact, being strong and dual-wielding troll-bone handaxes is part of my backstory, it sounds awesome. I can build some great stuff with this. Except, nothing in elf mechanically is what I want for a Barbarian. the lack of Strength and Con make me deal even less damage, miss more, have lower HP. Heck, if I was building this with the Standard array, I'd be looking at 15, 15, 14, 14, 10, 8 which isn't terrible, I mean, I can work with it. But my very first ASI at level 4 is going to be getting those to 16's, meaning I can't take feats which I love to take, because they are more interesting.

But, I could do a nearly identical concept with a Dwarf. Getting 17, 16, 12, 13, 10, 8. Same AC, better damage, better hp, better in every way as doing what a Barbarian does. So, now I am forced to answer a question. Do I care more about being an Elf, or more about being a Barbarian?

Everyone draws that line in a different place. However the choice is not between being an elf, or being a barbarian. Its between being an elf or an optimal barbarian.
You can still be an elf and a barbarian. You'll be 5% less effective at DPS, and more effective at some things that aren't going to come up as often as hitting stuff is. You'll be considerably faster and better at perception and stealth, but won't get the racial Armour and weapon proficiencies and you'll be less resistant to poison. You'll still be a barbarian, and an acceptably good one.
So you'll need to have a look at the possibilities and decide your own cost/benefit analysis: Will you have more fun playing to your elf barbarian concept, or dealing more damage in combat? It is just like the decision of where to allocate your ability scores, or whether to go for an ASI or a feat and like that, no-one else can make that decision for you.
Your party aren't going to regard you as letting them down if you deal a few less hit points a round. If you play to a strong concept that you have, you will probably produce more net fun for the group than a slightly more effective, but less inspiring character.

(Of course the ideal solution would be to persuade your DM to come up with something like a grugach, which has both the superior racial ASIs and the superior non-ASI abilities.)

I don’t buy this line of argument that rules at 12+ aren’t relevant because “most” games don’t go that high. If something is wrong with the rules, then something is wrong with the rules. What, people who play at higher levels don’t matter?

Certainly for myself, its more to do with the distribution.

Furthermore, if we want to say that only statistically “normal” games matter, then you don’t have to worry about immersion-breaking 17 strength halflings and gnomes, because most games don’t have halfling or gnome fighters and barbarians, as we know from the data.

As has been mentioned, I doubt removing ASIs would change the frequency of Gnome or Halfling barbarians much.
However, while the data shows that races with classes that their racial ASIs synergise with are popular, I think for every set of five players, at least one will be playing a class and race where the racial ASIs aren't to the class' primary ability score.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, I guess. But they affect each other. Like the tropes we associate with certain races have at least partly been moulded over the years by rules supporting those tropes. The first strength 17 halfling berserker or super smart ork wizard might be surprising the next seven thousand of them wont. And once it becomes the norm that every race is equally good at everything it will affect how people think about them and what tropes they associate with them.

But an orc wizard will always be surprising unless we end up seeing a lot of them, because the lore and culture of orcs doesn't match up well with the wizard class, and most people play orcs to be big and strong and scary.

So, the big tough guy from a furious people who generally prefer dealing with spirits to academic memorization and theorycrafting for their magics, who becomes a wizard, will remain surprising.