Level Up (A5E) Where to put ability bonuses during character creation

[Morrus]

I have been advocating separating ancestry and culture, a la the book on DMsguild of the same name, mostly because I like the character building possibilities and because people seem to want a separation. Personally, I'm fine with leaving it as is.

In fact, the author of that very book is on our elite team of 5E game designers!

 

[Guest 6801328]

One potential option on the table is to drop the starting ASIs completely, but give each heritage a significant (feat-sized) feature.

We talked about this in one of the other threads. I would particular support this if the "feat-sized feature" supported the flavor of the former ASI. E.g., goliaths would get a feature that supported the image of them as really strong, without directly benefitting strength-based combat.

It would be tricky to design all those features, for all those races, but worth the effort, in my opinion.

 

[EscherEnigma]

IWere the Ancient Greeks Stronger on average than the Ancient Norsemen? Smarter? More charming? No. Their abilities were basically the same.

Now do Spartans and Athenians.

Or Norfolk military tradition and New York Bohemian tradition.

Or New York low-class and New York high-rollers.

Or Jocks and Nerds.

Social groups at any level, be they tribes, villages, city-states, or nations are not mono-cultures. If you go into this assuming that they are, of course you'll get weird results.

 

[Undrave]

Maybe instead of 'culture' we could call it 'Upbringing'? Some current background sorta bleed into that so we'd have to change them so backgrounds are more profession-like.

Keep them with races, thats the only thing that makes sense.

So you don't think someone with experience as a blacksmith should be stronger and more resilient that someone who worked as a merchant? That someone who worked as an entertainer is more charismatic than someone who was a sailor?

 

[Undrave]

We talked about this in one of the other threads. I would particular support this if the "feat-sized feature" supported the flavor of the former ASI. E.g., goliaths would get a feature that supported the image of them as really strong, without directly benefitting strength-based combat.

It would be tricky to design all those features, for all those races, but worth the effort, in my opinion.

It would certainly be cool I think. I'd be all for that.

 

[Zaukrie]

I agree with you, and I think the source of that is the way that in 5e, you have to choose between ASI or Feats. I think a good compromise would be to remove the racials ASI, but allow for both feats AND ASI to be part of a character progression in A5E.

This

Or, replace ASI with small feats at first level......

 

[Zaukrie]

I'm not sure that getting rid of ASI works, now that I think about it.... Not if you want to keep monsters the same, and have compatability. The AC and DC scores for monsters assume some things....

 

[Undrave]

I'm not sure that getting rid of ASI works, now that I think about it.... Not if you want to keep monsters the same, and have compatability. The AC and DC scores for monsters assume some things....

Just bump up the standard array.

16, 15, 13, 12, 11, 8 would be my pick. Ideally there should be an odd number of odd scores once all is said and done. Makes advancement a little more interesting that way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just bump up the standard array.

16, 15, 13, 12, 11, 8 would be my pick. Ideally there should be an odd number of odd scores once all is said and done. Makes advancement a little more interesting that way.

Again, you have to allow for other stat generation methods. Not everyone likes the standard array, and it's not the default.

 

[CleverNickName]

Again, you have to allow for other stat generation methods. Not everyone likes the standard array, and it's not the default.

Agreed. My players loathe the standard array...they feel it is too same-y and cookie-cutter for their characters.