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

[Guest 6801328]

I'd agree with you about groups: IME less than 10% of games are where feats are banned.

I am however a little skeptical about the claim that most players don't use feats. I accept that most characters don't use them, but I do think that most 5e players will have generated a character with feats at some point in the time they have been playing.

I have to laugh at the finer and finer granularity, but that sounds right to me.

 

[Maxperson]

Did Max...Max...really just accuse other posters of spreading idle gossip without backing it up with evidence?

Here's one, picked practically at random:


I'd love to see the evidence for that assertion.

EDIT: Or how about the accusation that JC is lying...literally lying...about it?

I already provided evidence of about D&D Beyond and I never said JC was lying. That's your Strawman of my argument......again. I said I don't take his words at face value.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'd agree with you about groups: IME less than 10% of games are where feats are banned.

I am however a little skeptical about the claim that most players don't use feats. I accept that most characters don't use them, but I do think that most 5e players will have generated a character with feats at some point in the time they have been playing.


Well, yes. Just not the same house.

The evidence we have is that if characters level high enough that most will use feats. I’m not sure looking at a snapshot of characters at a specific level is very meaningful - which is all D&D beyond data shows us.

 

[CleverNickName]

Did anyone win the argument yet? (Spoiler: there are no winners in an Internet argument.)

I did some more thinking about one of my previous posts, about assigning +1 ASIs to each of the Class, Subclass, Race, Subrace, and Background options. This would give a flat +5 ASIs in total to all characters regardless of their build, with that last +1 coming later for most character classes. One of my main concerns with this approach would be that it would be easy to abuse: certain players would doubtlessly try to engineer it such that they get a starting ASI of +3 or higher at 1st level. And after thinking about it, I think I have found a way to fix that.

• First, we set it such that only physical ASIs are granted by race and subrace. To me, these represent the physical body that your character was born into.
• And second, we rig it such that a race and subrace never give the same ASI. Like, an elf would get a +1 to Dex, so no elf subraces would also grant a +1 bonus to Dex.
• Next, only mental ASIs are granted by background. This makes sense to me because your background reflects your past and your experiences, the things you have learned and the habits you have picked up. All brain-stuff.
• Finally, your class and subclass can give ASI bonuses to anything. (This is how you are able to get that oh-so-vital +2 to a single ability score.) And like the above, a class and its related subclass will be different. For example, if the Fighter class gives a bonus to Strength, none of the Fighter subclasses will grant another bonus to Strength.

By carefully choosing the race/subrace, background, and class/subclass combinations, the most that a crafty player could engineer would be a +2 in two different ability scores, and probably not at 1st level (unless they are playing one of the classes that gets to pick their subclass early.) It's a little more strict, but it compensates by also being slightly more powerful.

I'm sure there are other issues with this idea, but this was the biggest one for me. I'll keep tinkering with it.

I'd still prefer to do all ASIs with Background alone, and leave race and class out of the equation altogether. Athletes get +2 to Dex or Str and a +1 to Con. Soldiers get a +2 to Con and a +1 to Str or Dex. Acolytes get a +2 Wis and +1 Cha. That sort of thing. But lots of folks are struggling with that idea.

 

[Guest 6801328]

and I never said JC was lying.

I went back and looked and you're right, you never said he is lying, only that you don't accept his word on this because you don't trust anything that comes from corporations.

Which I find sort of ridiculous in this case, but whatever.

Anyway, again, you're right, you didn't actually accuse him of lying.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Did anyone win the argument yet? (Spoiler: there are no winners in an Internet argument.)

Wait-- what? Man, what I am wasting my time for then?

And what are you thinking, trying to get the thread back on course??? (j/k)

I'm sure there are other issues with this idea, but this was the biggest one for me. I'll keep tinkering with it.

My biggest issue with this is you are granting a 5 ASIs overall, which bumps ability scores even more than they already are. My view is ability scores are, in general, too high to begin with anyway after adding ASIs. But I know that is a view not many share.

First, we set it such that only physical ASIs are granted by race and subrace. To me, these represent the physical body that your character was born into.

This is fine for players who view other races as mentally equivalent to human. I'm not one of those. I think an elf's long lifespan, for example, changes the way they think and could make them simply smarter. In other words, whether the biology is physical or mental, it could be either.

And second, we rig it such that a race and subrace never give the same ASI. Like, an elf would get a +1 to Dex, so no elf subraces would also grant a +1 bonus to Dex.

This I would be perfectly fine with. To reduce over all bonuses, I would also be okay with limiting race to +1 and removing subraces ASIs.

Next, only mental ASIs are granted by background. This makes sense to me because your background reflects your past and your experiences, the things you have learned and the habits you have picked up. All brain-stuff.

Past experiences are good and all, but to me a lot of that is reflected in the skill proficiencies (such as Soldier getting Athletics). But, I think many backgrounds could give physical ASIs just as well as mental ones. Like you suggest later for backgrounds, a Soldier could have CON +1 or such.

Finally, your class and subclass can give ASI bonuses to anything. (This is how you are able to get that oh-so-vital +2 to a single ability score.) And like the above, a class and its related subclass will be different. For example, if the Fighter class gives a bonus to Strength, none of the Fighter subclasses will grant another bonus to Strength.

So, you want these to float? I understand by restricting race to physical, and background to mental, you prevent the overlap there. I still think race and background could cover mental and physical, respectively, as I said before, but otherwise I would remove the subclass and preferably the class as well just to keep the total ASIs to 3 instead of 5.

I'd still prefer to do all ASIs with Background alone, and leave race and class out of the equation altogether. Athletes get +2 to Dex or Str and a +1 to Con. Soldiers get a +2 to Con and a +1 to Str or Dex. Acolytes get a +2 Wis and +1 Cha. That sort of thing. But lots of folks are struggling with that idea.

There's nothing wrong with this, except it shifts the onus from race to background. And, since backgrounds are completely customizable, you basically are giving floating ASIs anyway as long as the player/DM can justify it if they feel the need.

Anyway, thank you very much for getting the thread back on track and offering your thoughts. They're perfectly good and might work for many players!

All in all, I think the best thing is a fixed +1 for race, a chose of two options for class, and a floating +1, capping it at +2 for any one ability score. But, I posted on that before and never got much feedback--maybe people don't like it or maybe they are just "thread-dead" and tired of discussing it? shrug

 

[doctorbadwolf]

“Somewhere in the world there’s this thing you are looking for but I’m not going to tell you where. Find it on your own”.

Vs

“This thing you are looking for is located here”

If you know where something is and refuse To say becaus you want someone else to find it in their own that is being a _______ (full in the blank)

I mean, sure, but I didn't do that, so this response is irrelevant.

Again, you're in a library. I wasn't even the person who made the claim, but that person provided all the needed search terms. Saying, "Use terms xyz at the reference desk. It's a book about X written by Y in category Z." is perfectly reasonable.

If you're posting here, you are in history's greatest library, where the reference desk is largely automated.

I'm perfectly willing to do the work of explaining this to people. I'm not willing to do the work of using the library for another person who is fully capable of doing it themselves.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Anyway, again, you're right, you didn't actually accuse him of lying.

I mean, not directly. Technically.

Implications are things, but whatever.

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean, sure, but I didn't do that, so this response is irrelevant.

Again, you're in a library. I wasn't even the person who made the claim, but that person provided all the needed search terms. Saying, "Use terms xyz at the reference desk. It's a book about X written by Y in category Z." is perfectly reasonable.

If you're posting here, you are in history's greatest library, where the reference desk is largely automated.

I'm perfectly willing to do the work of explaining this to people. I'm not willing to do the work of using the library for another person who is fully capable of doing it themselves.

I mean, sure, but I didn't do that, so this response is irrelevant.

Again, you're in a library. I wasn't even the person who made the claim, but that person provided all the needed search terms. Saying, "Use terms xyz at the reference desk. It's a book about X written by Y in category Z." is perfectly reasonable.

If you're posting here, you are in history's greatest library, where the reference desk is largely automated.

I'm perfectly willing to do the work of explaining this to people. I'm not willing to do the work of using the library for another person who is fully capable of doing it themselves.

It’s not reasonable when you can provide the person the exact location easier and faster than they can find it at the reference desk.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It’s not reasonable when you can provide the person the exact location easier and faster than they can find it at the reference desk.

Could I? I don't save DDB or wotc videos or podcast episodes, nor do I catalogue which ones touch on which topics. I'd have to use the reference desk, just like the other person.

Why should I do that work that I've already done in the past for myself, for someone else, who isn't even a friendly and courteous participant in the conversation, but rather spends the whole time implying dishonesty and hidden motives for people he doesn't know?