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

[Scott Christian]

This quote from you, about two pages back, seems to disagree with that assertion:

I am sorry you took it that way. Bold my entire text and you will notice its context. Never in it do I say min/maxers do not care about role playing. I say they care about min/maxing more than role playing, which is directly related to the argument.

No lore is being changed. Character creation is not a pillar of the game.

But, since you refuse to acknowledge that and insist that everything must stay the same, where can we go? I guess we keep the game the same so that some players can have their "status quo"

I never said character creation is a pillar of the game. I said that the mechanics of ASI is a pillar of the game. You see, I use the word pillar as in foundation, not exploration, combat and social. Sorry if there was confusion.

Well, since 0% of all lore is being changed, don't worry. Because again, these are rules for PCs. The NPCs can do whatever it is they normally do. I don't bother statting out the village of elves. So, whether they have a 12, 14, 16, or 18 Dex never comes up. It literally doesn't matter.

To repeat, no lore is being tossed out with this change. All this change does is make PCs more unique, and they were already unique.

Again, lore is also associated with tropes. Sorry if my definition of lore and pillar was confusing, I thought it was obvious. Lore: Brunor Battlehammer - dwarf. Burly, Strong. Fighter. Drizzt Do'Urden: dark elf. Dual wield. Agile. Ranger. They are part of D&D's lore, right? They are now tropes, right? Their mechanical advantages can be found in the way players create characters, right?

To get rid of tropes is to get rid of lore.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree it is certainly a more logical approach than floating, but IMO it complicates the issue even more so and is just moving the issue partly away from race and onto class and/or background. Numerous people (including myself) have argued for a system that spreads things out, as where floating accomplishes the same goal without needing to specify the sources of the ASIs necessarily.

However, I am not playing today and have the time for a thought experiment on it. Let us (for argument's sake) suppose that the system granted 1 ASI from race, 1 ASI from background, and 1 ASI from class (making it as "complex" as possible). The only limit is you can't use more than two ASIs for any one ability score. Race could be fixed (in this example, or make it an option of two if you wish).

Suppose Halflings grant DEX +1 (fixed).
Suppose Orcs grant STR +1 (fixed).
Suppose Barbarians grants STR +1 or CON +1 (the class options mirror the saves they are proficient in).
Suppose Soldier grants STR +1 or DEX +1.

The player wants a strong PC for good attacks, etc. as a barbarian, but wants to play a Halfling, so picks STR +1 for both class and background. Now the PC has STR +2 and DEX +1 (from Halfling).

Another player wants a strong Orc, gaining STR +2 (Orc and either class or background) and perhaps DEX +1 (from background).

Now the two PCs could have the exact same scores, but get them in different ways.

NOTE: this is nothing new, people have been discussing such ideas on the forum for a LONG time.

Now, since backgrounds are completely fluid, it's been brought up that a custom background could support any two ASIs easily, which I agree with, but this in essence just makes that choice "float."

Ok, so your suggestion might have (for this very reason!) included only race and class. I suppose you could do something like this:

Race grants one ASI +1 which is fixed (or choice of two??? whichever really).
Class grants two ASI +1 which mirror proficient saves: thus, Barbarian would be STR, CON. You can choose the same ASI twice if you want.
You cannot add more than 2 to any one score.

Thus, the halfling would get STR +2 (double choice for barbarian) and DEX +1 (race).
The orc would also get STR +2 (one orc, one barbarian) and CON +1 (barbarian, cannot select STR again).

To easily adopt this into the current rules:

• The ASI +2 from a race becomes a fixed ASI +1 (subrace ASIs are ignored).
• Each class offers two ASI +1, choices may be the same.
• No more than two ASIs can be applied to any one ability score.

View attachment 124171

Alternatively, since variant human gets a feat, humans have no Fixed ASI for race. I like that better myself.

Later or another day I’ll reply to everything else, but I wanna say I do like a lot of what you’re saying here.

Also, my absolute preferred method would be;

Every race, subrace where applicable, and every class, would give 1-2 Favored Abilities, and a PC takes +2 (no stacking) in any two from their list of Favored Abilities. Further, you might have some minor benefit when doing skill stuff with your Favored Abilities.

So, a Lightfoot Halfling Barbarian would have Dex, Cha, Str, Con, as favored abilities. They would most likely choose Str and Con for their +2s, but would also have a very minor little ribbon benefit with all 4.

 

[Charlaquin]

They say that because of the arguments you are making for want non racial ASIs. It’s solely a jab at your arguments for them.

...? Huh? I don’t get the joke, in that case.

 

[Helldritch]

Later or another day I’ll reply to everything else, but I wanna say I do like a lot of what you’re saying here.

Also, my absolute preferred method would be;

Every race, subrace where applicable, and every class, would give 1-2 Favored Abilities, and a PC takes +2 (no stacking) in any two from their list of Favored Abilities. Further, you might have some minor benefit when doing skill stuff with your Favored Abilities.

So, a Lightfoot Halfling Barbarian would have Dex, Cha, Str, Con, as favored abilities. They would most likely choose Str and Con for their +2s, but would also have a very minor little ribbon benefit with all 4.

Forget the other scores. The lightfoot halfling barbarian will invariably and defenitely choose Str and Con for their +2. You just unkowingly proved my point. That halfling barbarian will be barely discernable from a half orc, a dwarf, a human, a dragon, a thiefling or whatever other race you care to put in the barbarian shoes. Ho yes, a small change here and there. Lucky trait, resitance to poison etc... but down the end, they will all be exactly the same.

Here's our take on the halfling barb that we had not so long ago. Halfling barbarian zerker. Dex 20, St 10, CN 16. The little bastard was quite a sight to behold. She had an amulet of health, ring +1 and a shield +1. She was at 23 AC. It could go higher with haste, shield of faith and warding bond. She was using a short sword as her main weapon. She might not have been the most effective damage dealer, but she was a terror to behold. She was a crit seeker and she was quite tanky. High AC, Zounds of HP and +5 to damage while not raging is not that abnormal. Even by giving advantage to the enemies, she still had high AC and would take half the damage. The little she devil was quite a surprise for her enemies and that group retired at level 15 right after OotA. She would have killed to get her hands on a flaming sword but she was still quite happy with her vicious short sword. With advantage, she was able to deal a lot of damage as she was a good crit seeker and this meant that the sword's ability would kick relatively often. She was often enlarged and would then used her rapier (vicious too...) for the same effect.

RP wise, she was playing as a timid candid little halfling. She did not look strong and she was not the type to lift a man in the air in anger. But boy could she clean a bar of bad clients! When she was raging, she would describe herself acting like Taz in looneytoons. The red hair halfling was a flaming tornado that you had to take into account. A dex base barb...

If she had had the choice of floating ASI, she would have made a plain old barb. St and CN enhanced. What is the surprise in that? Every Barbs will look the same, mechanically.

 

[Charlaquin]

Forget the other scores. The lightfoot halfling barbarian will invariably and defenitely choose Str and Con for their +2. You just unkowingly proved my point. That halfling barbarian will be barely discernable from a half orc, a dwarf, a human, a dragon, a thiefling or whatever other race you care to put in the barbarian shoes. Ho yes, a small change here and there. Lucky trait, resitance to poison etc... but down the end, they will all be exactly the same.

Those things make way more difference than their ability scores, though.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The thread that will not die. ("How do you kill that which has no life?")

Anyway, I've solved it.

You can either leave now, confident and content that it all has been resolved, or read on and become enlightened.

First, from the point of view of not having to choose between optimization and story, the problem that's bigger than racial ASIs is variant humans and their free feat. +2/+1 where you don't get to assign it, vs. floating +1/+1 and a feat? I go for the latter almost every time.

So here are my design goals:

• Freedom, or as much as possible, from an optimization point of view, to choose whatever race you want.
• Preserve the flavor/lore of some races being faster, stronger, smarter, whatever.
• Preserve the flavor of humans being the most versatile.

Here it is:

• Non-humans get +1/+1, with one assigned and one floating. Humans get +1 to all stats.
• Everybody also gets one feat. Each non-human race gets a list of feats they can choose from (for this free feat only; at higher levels they get the full list) some of which include a +1 bonus to their favored stats. I.e., half-orcs might have feats that give +1 to Str or Con, plus some feats that don't give any bonuses. Humans get to pick from all the lists. (Note: we'll probably have to come up with some more feats.)
• Non-humans still get their other racial features (plus maybe some new ones? They have to add up to being a good trade-off for +1 to your four least important stats.)

The result is that if you want to optimize for an archetypical class (e.g. halfling rogue) you can start with a 17 in your primary stat; otherwise the highest you can start with is a 16. That both preserves the sense that some races are just stronger, faster, etc., but doesn't actually provide a higher bonus for those first 3 levels.

You can thank me when 6e is in print.

 

[GreenTengu]

Ok, let's take a look.
Dwarves have two subspecies in the PHB. So far I have seen:
Dwarven rogue, both mountain and hill. Mountain dwarf gives better armor, the dump stat is usually in st but the bonus in CN is really good for rogues. The hill dwarf, is a different focus but the bonus to wisdom helps with skill checks. Both dwarves have resistance to poison which, for somebody checking traps is nothing to sniff at. The downside? The lower dexterity. The dwarves won't get a 16 in there but the mountain dwarf took Medium armor master, and his next two ASI were in Dexterity. He also took a few level of fighter as a personal choice (and RP reason) where the hill dwarf went all in on the rogue aspect.

A ranger would fall in the same category of the rogue. Similar problems, but not necessarily similar answers. Medium armor master would be prime choice unless the character goes all in for strength on a mountain dwarf. Then the feat heavy armored would come in handy. Wearing a plate might be surprising for a character usually relying on stealth but other than stealth, most of the ranger's skills are either ST base or Wis based. Using two battle axes can be nice to see. (We have had the hill dwarf but not the mountain...)

Dwarf Bard, Sorcerer and Warlock falls in the same categorie of the dwarven wizard. An armored caster that can be surprising. Both races will have similar response to the problem of not having 15 in their prime stats. A half feat might come in handy to compensate and bring good RP and to play even more on the "surprise" armored caster! Ya didn't see it coming did you?

Let's look at this in a very comparable situation.

Let's say a low level character receives a +1 magic version of whatever weapon they are already using. How many players upon receiving that would say "oh? You said it was red? My favorite color is blue. I throw it away." and what would generally be thought of a player who did that?

Because the concept that you seem utterly incapable of grasping is that the situation you are trying to describe as a "shrug your shoulders, personal preference-- it all works out" is not just the equivalent of throwing away a magical weapon because its the wrong color-- oh, it is so much worse than that.

Because throwing away that magic +1 weapon just means you are at a -1 to hit and -1 to damage while wielding that one particular weapon that could conceivably be knocked out of the character's hand or broken or replaced with an even better one.

No-- it is taking a permanent -1 to hit. -1 to damage, -1 to all major skills, and -1 to virtually all class abilities permanently, forever, throughout the entire lifetime of the character with no possible remedy or chance to make up for. And you get... what? Proficiencies the class already grants you? Or, worse, ones for weapon/armor that your attacks or AC would be lower if you used? That is nothing. A bonus in a complete dump stat that the character could go their entire career without ever making a roll using? Yeah-- nothing.

Expending ASI instead of taking a feat is never going to make up for that-- its just going to put one even further behind the version of them that chose to take a race that got the attribute bonus for the associated class.

Seriously, dude, I can tell you are desperately grasping at straws to try to justify something that you are totally used to and that the very concept of change scares you to your core-- but everything you just listed is just completely stupid.

As long as everything associated by a class is completely dictated by a single attribute bonus, choosing a race that does not maximize your score in that single attribute bonus is absolutely less respectable and more self-sabotaging than throwing away a +1 weapon because the DM described it as being a color that doesn't fit your character's color scheme.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As long as everything associated by a class is completely dictated by a single attribute bonus

But it is not. It literally is not.

 

[Helldritch]

Let's look at this in a very comparable situation.

Let's say a low level character receives a +1 magic version of whatever weapon they are already using. How many players upon receiving that would say "oh? You said it was red? My favorite color is blue. I throw it away." and what would generally be thought of a player who did that?

Because the concept that you seem utterly incapable of grasping is that the situation you are trying to describe as a "shrug your shoulders, personal preference-- it all works out" is not just the equivalent of throwing away a magical weapon because its the wrong color-- oh, it is so much worse than that.

Because throwing away that magic +1 weapon just means you are at a -1 to hit and -1 to damage while wielding that one particular weapon that could conceivably be knocked out of the character's hand or broken or replaced with an even better one.

No-- it is taking a permanent -1 to hit. -1 to damage, -1 to all major skills, and -1 to virtually all class abilities permanently, forever, throughout the entire lifetime of the character with no possible remedy or chance to make up for. And you get... what? Proficiencies the class already grants you? Or, worse, ones for weapon/armor that your attacks or AC would be lower if you used? That is nothing. A bonus in a complete dump stat that the character could go their entire career without ever making a roll using? Yeah-- nothing.

Expending ASI instead of taking a feat is never going to make up for that-- its just going to put one even further behind the version of them that chose to take a race that got the attribute bonus for the associated class.

Seriously, dude, I can tell you are desperately grasping at straws to try to justify something that you are totally used to and that the very concept of change scares you to your core-- but everything you just listed is just completely stupid.

As long as everything associated by a class is completely dictated by a single attribute bonus, choosing a race that does not maximize your score in that single attribute bonus is absolutely less respectable and more self-sabotaging than throwing away a +1 weapon because the DM described it as being a color that doesn't fit your character's color scheme.

Wow, you seek to debunk me and yet, you make my point for me! Thank you so much. Of course such a character is a bit suboptimal. That is the point of fixed ASI!!!!!!!!! Thank you so much for proving that floating ASI will only make all character making a class more or less the same. You are right in everyway save your conclusion. Also...

The halfling I told you about rose to level 15 in a very gritty campaign. You do not know me. But TPK is a real thing in my games and I do not hesitate to do it. All rolls are on the open, especially mine. Level 15 is nothing to sneeze at. Many campaigns do not rise this high! And a class is not ruled by only one attribute. The Dex barbarian halfling was quite efficient thank you. She was a memorable character.

As for the other racial abilities, Charlaquin said

Those things make way more difference than their ability scores, though.

Yes... and no... It is not really enough to deter from doing this or that. In fact, some racial specials are way more powerful than others. Without Racial ASI to keep these in check, you'll see some players cherry picking for the best one related to class again.

The thread that will not die. ("How do you kill that which has no life?")

Anyway, I've solved it.

You can either leave now, confident and content that it all has been resolved, or read on and become enlightened.

First, from the point of view of not having to choose between optimization and story, the problem that's bigger than racial ASIs is variant humans and their free feat. +2/+1 where you don't get to assign it, vs. floating +1/+1 and a feat? I go for the latter almost every time.

So here are my design goals:

• Freedom, or as much as possible, from an optimization point of view, to choose whatever race you want.
• Preserve the flavor/lore of some races being faster, stronger, smarter, whatever.
• Preserve the flavor of humans being the most versatile.

Here it is:

• Everybody gets +1/+1, with one assigned and one floating. Humans get +1 to all stats.
• Everybody also gets one feat. Each non-human race gets a list of feats they can choose from (for this free feat only; at higher levels they get the full list) some of which include a +1 bonus to their favored stats. I.e., half-orcs might have feats that give +1 to Str or Con, plus some feats that don't give any bonuses. Humans get to pick from all the lists. (Note: we'll probably have to come up with some more feats.)
• Non-humans still get their other racial features (plus maybe some new ones? They have to add up to being a good trade-off for +1 to your four least important stats.)

The result is that if you want to optimize for an archetypical class (e.g. halfling rogue) you can start with a 17 in your primary stat; otherwise the highest you can start with is a 16. That both preserves the sense that some races are just stronger, faster, etc., but doesn't actually provide a higher bonus for those first 3 levels.

You can thank me when 6e is in print.

Not a bad take. Charlaquin's idea on giving an additional +1 ASI related to culture or background would achieve the same goal too. And it would require a lot less modification to 5ed to perform.

However, in the eventuality of a 6ed. I think that I would side heavily on this take. It does have its charm and it would preserve a bit more the lore. On the other hand, the exception would no longer be an exception as any race will be able to perform optimally in every single class. This is both a blessing and a curse. I would much prefer to see both ASI to be fixed. But racial feat could be a way too. I'll have to analyse it further.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Forget the other scores. The lightfoot halfling barbarian will invariably and defenitely choose Str and Con for their +2. You just unkowingly proved my point. That halfling barbarian will be barely discernable from a half orc, a dwarf, a human, a dragon, a thiefling or whatever other race you care to put in the barbarian shoes. Ho yes, a small change here and there. Lucky trait, resitance to poison etc... but down the end, they will all be exactly the same.

Here's our take on the halfling barb that we had not so long ago. Halfling barbarian zerker. Dex 20, St 10, CN 16. The little bastard was quite a sight to behold. She had an amulet of health, ring +1 and a shield +1. She was at 23 AC. It could go higher with haste, shield of faith and warding bond. She was using a short sword as her main weapon. She might not have been the most effective damage dealer, but she was a terror to behold. She was a crit seeker and she was quite tanky. High AC, Zounds of HP and +5 to damage while not raging is not that abnormal. Even by giving advantage to the enemies, she still had high AC and would take half the damage. The little she devil was quite a surprise for her enemies and that group retired at level 15 right after OotA. She would have killed to get her hands on a flaming sword but she was still quite happy with her vicious short sword. With advantage, she was able to deal a lot of damage as she was a good crit seeker and this meant that the sword's ability would kick relatively often. She was often enlarged and would then used her rapier (vicious too...) for the same effect.

RP wise, she was playing as a timid candid little halfling. She did not look strong and she was not the type to lift a man in the air in anger. But boy could she clean a bar of bad clients! When she was raging, she would describe herself acting like Taz in looneytoons. The red hair halfling was a flaming tornado that you had to take into account. A dex base barb...

If she had had the choice of floating ASI, she would have made a plain old barb. St and CN enhanced. What is the surprise in that? Every Barbs will look the same, mechanically.

And I’ve seen halfling Barbarians that are buff and intimidating and wield warhammers.

And even if you’re right, and IMO you are not, the halfling Barbarian will still be different from a dwarf Barbarian, due to a combination of features and whatever Favored Ability ribbon ends up in that spot.

as for “surprise”, your position doesn’t grok, for me. So, now you’re positing that surprise (which is apparently important?) relies entirely on mechanical incongruency of a specifically mathematical nature!?