D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: Gothic Lineages & New Race/Culture Distinction

The latest Unearthed Arcana contains the Dhampir, Reborn, and Hexblood races. The Dhampir is a half-vampire; the Hexblood is a character which has made a pact with a hag; and the Reborn is somebody brought back to life.

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

Perhaps the bigger news is this declaration on how race is to be handled in future D&D books as it joins other games by stating that:

"...the race options in this article and in future D&D books lack the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, the Alignment trait, and any other trait that is purely cultural. Racial traits henceforth reflect only the physical or magical realities of being a player character who’s a member of a particular lineage. Such traits include things like darkvision, a breath weapon (as in the dragonborn), or innate magical ability (as in the forest gnome). Such traits don’t include cultural characteristics, like language or training with a weapon or a tool, and the traits also don’t include an alignment suggestion, since alignment is a choice for each individual, not a characteristic shared by a lineage."

 

[Chaosmancer]

It is absurd to accept that a three-foot tall halfling is as strong as a six-and-a-half foot tall human or tiefling. At least it is unless you make some further assumptions.

Previous version of the game reduced the carrying and lifting capacity of small sized characters to account for this and said that the actual strength score was not wholly dependent on how strong you were, but how strong you were relative to your size and how well you used that strength. Now this was an obvious attempt to explain away something that doesn't make sense, but it was enough of an excuse to use for a willing suspension of disbelief.

With that president set, 5e now describes strength as follows: "Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force." So bodily power, that is to say, physical strength, is still a factor, but they are also using the abstract ideas of athleticism and effectively applying force to hand-wave physically smaller creatures being just as strong as larger ones.

Now I think it is fair to say that WotC did not remove the size adjustment for carrying capacity for small creatures because they believed small creatures are just as strong as medium sized creatures. They removed it because it was simpler to do so. 5th edition made playing D&D easy, and they removed a lot of simulationist rules that, while more reflective on the fantasy reality, didn't really add that much to the game. (I realize this and I like the simulationist rules!)

A new rule declaring all species ASIs are no longer static and now may be assigned as desired does not make things simpler, it makes it more complicated. And, in my opinion, less fun.

Edit: I am going to keep an eye on this thread to see if anyone else responds or to see if, once again, I have managed to kill a long running thread.

The problem, as you noted, is that these ASIs already don't allow for bigger races to be stronger than smaller races.

And, what is a +2 Charisma representing for your racial ASI? Are Humans really more charming and persuasive than Elves? What about wisdom, are Lotusden Halflings really wiser and more perceptive than Gnomes? Are Hobgoblins truly more intelligent than Dwarves?


Now, take away those Racial ASIs and make them floating. What can happen?

Well, my Dwarf has a bonus to Intelligence because he was a battlefield commander, adapt at preparing and reading the battlefield. That Elf has been a bard for 230 years, practicing singing and dancing, they get a bonus to Charisma because they are mesmerizing to watch and have a lot of experience as a diplomat. My Tiefling has a bonus to strength, because their fiendish ancestor was a hulking war demon, whose blood infected their mother when she killed it.

It isn't simulationist in that "the average of the race is slightly higher" but it is simulationist in "what my character did and who they are helped determine their stats"

Heck, I have a character who I made who is an Aasimar born to Goliaths. Nothing in Aasimar lore says that the celestial blood has to go to a human right? And I wanted to make them a Zealot Barbarian to pair with their twin brother who was not an Aasimar. And their brother, despite not being the "chosen hero" was a better barbarian. Because Aasimar don't get the same bonuses and Goliaths. So, my character with a Goliath heritage didn't feel like a chosen hero of Goliaths, he felt like a weak human. That character should have a bonus to strength and Con, not Charisma.

So, I feel like this makes things much more intuitive. You can adjust the stats to be what they should. And while that does mean that the statistical average of a community of dwarves might not be represented mechanically any more, it does mean that sages are smarter and bards are more charming.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And that party of yours - multi-class fanatics! Very interesting.

I know, drives me nuts. But everyone loves multi-classing in that group, so who am I to judge (I judge anyways, but so what. They judge me for mono-classing)

 

[Lord Twig]

I find it so fascinating that you can believe that the Designers absolutely believe that the ASIs were meant to be archetypes in 5e, but that at the same time, the designers have to be wrong about what they believed to be true about their own design.

Believe what you want I guess, but in my opinion, if they believe they designed something with a specific intent... that is literally proof that they designed it with that intent. You can't have a different intent than you believed yourself to have, unless we are talking about unconcious biases, which.. I don't think can apply to this.

I don't believe that the WotC designers believed that the racial ASIs were meant to be archetypes at the outset of 5e. It strains credulity that they didn't assign racial stat bonuses as representative of biological abilities of the species they were portraying and were instead just trying to, paraphrasing "reflect archetypal bits of excellence in adventurers from D&D's past". We have a historical record here on ENWorld. I challenge anyone to go through the history of this board and find any quote anywhere from two years ago or before (maybe even before a year or so ago, I don't know when this idea started to percolate through Unearthed Arcana) that refers to the racial ASIs as anything but a biological representation. You won't find one, because it doesn't exist. It was cut out of whole cloth for the Tasha's book.

But are they lying? I don't know. They may have convinced themselves that they were thinking something different at the time, or they may have rationalized it in their head somehow, or maybe they just forgot and now remember it differently, or who knows what. I don't know. Of course it is possible, although extremely unlikely, that they DID intend it as that whole "archetypal bits" and just didn't tell any one for the past 7 years.

 

[Lord Twig]

The problem, as you noted, is that these ASIs already don't allow for bigger races to be stronger than smaller races.

And, what is a +2 Charisma representing for your racial ASI? Are Humans really more charming and persuasive than Elves? What about wisdom, are Lotusden Halflings really wiser and more perceptive than Gnomes? Are Hobgoblins truly more intelligent than Dwarves?


Now, take away those Racial ASIs and make them floating. What can happen?

Well, my Dwarf has a bonus to Intelligence because he was a battlefield commander, adapt at preparing and reading the battlefield. That Elf has been a bard for 230 years, practicing singing and dancing, they get a bonus to Charisma because they are mesmerizing to watch and have a lot of experience as a diplomat. My Tiefling has a bonus to strength, because their fiendish ancestor was a hulking war demon, whose blood infected their mother when she killed it.

It isn't simulationist in that "the average of the race is slightly higher" but it is simulationist in "what my character did and who they are helped determine their stats"

Heck, I have a character who I made who is an Aasimar born to Goliaths. Nothing in Aasimar lore says that the celestial blood has to go to a human right? And I wanted to make them a Zealot Barbarian to pair with their twin brother who was not an Aasimar. And their brother, despite not being the "chosen hero" was a better barbarian. Because Aasimar don't get the same bonuses and Goliaths. So, my character with a Goliath heritage didn't feel like a chosen hero of Goliaths, he felt like a weak human. That character should have a bonus to strength and Con, not Charisma.

So, I feel like this makes things much more intuitive. You can adjust the stats to be what they should. And while that does mean that the statistical average of a community of dwarves might not be represented mechanically any more, it does mean that sages are smarter and bards are more charming.

Yes, humans are more naturally charming and persuasive than elves. Slightly, like 2.5% better on average. And they are, on average, 2.5% less dexterous. And sure, Lotusden halflings can be wiser and more perceptive than gnomes. Why not? Isn't that more interesting than, "No, they are the same as everyone else." And why can't hobgoblins be smarter than dwarves? Illithids are smarter than dwarves, they are smarter than just about everyone! Why is it a problem with gnomes and hobgoblins but not Illithids? For that matter why is it okay for minotaurs and gnolls to be dumber but not orcs? It makes no sense.

Put those Racial ASIs back and nothing you said changes. Your dwarf still has his highest stat in intelligence because he is a battlefield commander and put his highest ability in intelligence and then put his class ASIs in intelligence as he leveled up. The fact that he has a +2 in Con and a +1 Wis or +2 Str doesn't change the fact that his highest stat can be Int. And he is, at worst, 5% behind a human that also focused on intelligence. Until the dwarf catches up and becomes the same. But that is just if you don't allow Tasha's optional rules. Which I would allow. So in my game you would not have a problem.

Your elf bard of 230 years has a high Charisma because he put his 15 there and then added another +2 at level 4, and another +2 at level 8. Is he as Charismatic as a Half-Elf or Human bard? Does it matter? Are you competing against the another bard in the party? How often does that +1 make a difference? Honestly probable a lot less than 5% since not everything you are doing is going to require a roll. Again, in my game I would allow the optional rule and it wouldn't be an issue.

Now I have to ask, are we just talking about PCs? Or are we including NPCs? Because if we are just talking about PCs, as I said, I'm fine with it. Your dwarf has a below average constitution for a "typical" dwarf because reasons, it can be anything you want. Be creative! Of course if your Con is a 12 or 14, you really don't need a reason at all, it is still well within typical dwarf constitution range. And the +2 Cha is easy enough to explain as "He spent all his time playing music and entertaining his friends when he was young." Fair enough! Sounds good! Or it could be as unusual as "was gifted with a fae-like glamour by a nymph after he protected her grove from rampaging goblins." Even better! Now I have a back story I can work with!

But if we remove default racial ASIs from NPCs, what does that say about dwarves in general? Nothing, it says nothing about them. "Bold and hardy, dwarves are know as skilled warriors, miners and workers of stone and metal." Really? Why are they known as such? With the new rules, if you remove all defaults, this is really not true anymore. "Their courage and endurance are also easily a match for any of the larger folk." Well, I guess? In that their courage and endurance are exactly the same. Why even mention it?

I guess the are slow (25' movement), have darkvision, are resistant to poison and have stonecunning. Or do they have stonecunning? Does it count as a proficiency that can be moved around? (Honest question here.)

Hill dwarves are a little tougher because of dwarven toughness, I guess. And mountain dwarves are... slightly better than everyone else at what ever it is they are trying to do? Like, they can an extra +2 ASI somewhere instead of just +1 and get an extra proficiency with any armor, weapon or tool? So they are not better at any one thing in particular, they are just better at... something. I just don't see how that is a better story.

 

[JEB]

(Accidentally posted before typing anything, nothing to see here. Carry on.)

 

[JEB]

Here's the actual quote from the UA:

Following in [TCoE's] footsteps, the race options in this article and in future D&D books lack the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, the Alignment trait, and any other trait that is purely cultural. Racial traits henceforth reflect only the physical or magical realities of being a player character who’s a member of a particular lineage. Such traits include things like darkvision, a breath weapon (as in the dragonborn), or innate magical ability (as in the forest gnome). Such traits don’t include cultural characteristics, like language or training with a weapon or a tool, and the traits also don’t include an alignment suggestion, since alignment is a choice for each individual, not a characteristic shared by a lineage
If anything, it's slightly poor writing.

Actually, I think it may have been very careful writing. As you see, they list ASI/language/alignment/cultural traits at first, but when they go into further detail about cultural characteristics, they mention all of those except ASIs. Thus saving them from making a declaration on the matter. Folks like you can interpret it as "ASI is also a cultural characteristic", others still have room to parse it as "ASI AND cultural traits like language and alignment". We'll have to wait and see if Wizards makes a less ambiguous statement later on. (Assuming they got pushback from the other direction on the change, though, I would expect future statements to be more ambiguous...)

The contradiction comes in where you suddenly have them upset at the idea of making a decision with a floating ASI. If deciding between an Elven Fighter, Ranger, Monk, Wizard, Artificer, Rogue, or ect isn't a decision that is going to slow them down or upset them why is +2 to one of six options a problem?

I don't think I suggested such players would be upset at having to make a decision; only that they'd been perfectly fine not making that decision before, and now they have to consider it. (Though I suppose it could upset some.)

As for the rest of your point, they always had to choose a race and a class, with or without fixed ASIs. But with floating ASIs and no default suggestions, they're required to pick their race, their class and their ASI. It's three decision points instead of two.

I don't believe that the WotC designers believed that the racial ASIs were meant to be archetypes at the outset of 5e. It strains credulity that they didn't assign racial stat bonuses as representative of biological abilities of the species they were portraying and were instead just trying to, paraphrasing "reflect archetypal bits of excellence in adventurers from D&D's past". We have a historical record here on ENWorld. I challenge anyone to go through the history of this board and find any quote anywhere from two years ago or before (maybe even before a year or so ago, I don't know when this idea started to percolate through Unearthed Arcana) that refers to the racial ASIs as anything but a biological representation. You won't find one, because it doesn't exist. It was cut out of whole cloth for the Tasha's book.

But are they lying? I don't know. They may have convinced themselves that they were thinking something different at the time, or they may have rationalized it in their head somehow, or maybe they just forgot and now remember it differently, or who knows what. I don't know. Of course it is possible, although extremely unlikely, that they DID intend it as that whole "archetypal bits" and just didn't tell any one for the past 7 years.

Adding to this: the "NPC Features" table (page 282) in the 5E DMG provides a list of ability score adjustments for both PC and monster races, meant to be applied to the NPC stat blocks for any character race other than human. These adjustments are explicitly being applied to NPCs, not the exceptional PCs, and the adjustments from PC races are consistent with the ones for PCs in the PHB. The idea that the PC ASIs represented archetypes distinct from the biology of those races, rather than the way these races simply were, only appeared in the lead-up to Tasha.

Of course, they're allowed to change their mind. But it feels more like PR than fact that it was always meant to be this way.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't believe that the WotC designers believed that the racial ASIs were meant to be archetypes at the outset of 5e. It strains credulity that they didn't assign racial stat bonuses as representative of biological abilities of the species they were portraying and were instead just trying to, paraphrasing "reflect archetypal bits of excellence in adventurers from D&D's past". We have a historical record here on ENWorld. I challenge anyone to go through the history of this board and find any quote anywhere from two years ago or before (maybe even before a year or so ago, I don't know when this idea started to percolate through Unearthed Arcana) that refers to the racial ASIs as anything but a biological representation. You won't find one, because it doesn't exist. It was cut out of whole cloth for the Tasha's book.

But are they lying? I don't know. They may have convinced themselves that they were thinking something different at the time, or they may have rationalized it in their head somehow, or maybe they just forgot and now remember it differently, or who knows what. I don't know. Of course it is possible, although extremely unlikely, that they DID intend it as that whole "archetypal bits" and just didn't tell any one for the past 7 years.

So, you don't want to say that they are lying. Maybe they have forgotten their design intention for a game that they were being paid to design and maintain. Or, as you say, maybe there is small chance they just didn't tell anyone.

Now, I'm going to look at this small chance, what would it mean? It would mean that when they said this was their intent, it was really their intent. That they told us the truth.

Now, let us look at the other possibilities in aggregate, all of them, what would they mean? It would mean that when they said this was their intent, they are lying. That they lied to us, maybe to prevent a seeming social Faux Paux.


And mechanically, or game design-wise going forward, what does this mean? Literally nothing. It matters about as much as the fact that Aloe Vera is succulent. Whether they are lying or not about their original intent changes nothing about the game going forward. And, additionally, you have come across something that is literally impossible to prove. You would need a time machine and the ability to read minds and follow them for the entire design process 24/7 to prove their actual real intent.

Believe they lied or believe they told the truth. The mechanics of the game don't change either way.

Yes, humans are more naturally charming and persuasive than elves. Slightly, like 2.5% better on average. And they are, on average, 2.5% less dexterous. And sure, Lotusden halflings can be wiser and more perceptive than gnomes. Why not? Isn't that more interesting than, "No, they are the same as everyone else." And why can't hobgoblins be smarter than dwarves? Illithids are smarter than dwarves, they are smarter than just about everyone! Why is it a problem with gnomes and hobgoblins but not Illithids? For that matter why is it okay for minotaurs and gnolls to be dumber but not orcs? It makes no sense.

Put those Racial ASIs back and nothing you said changes. Your dwarf still has his highest stat in intelligence because he is a battlefield commander and put his highest ability in intelligence and then put his class ASIs in intelligence as he leveled up. The fact that he has a +2 in Con and a +1 Wis or +2 Str doesn't change the fact that his highest stat can be Int. And he is, at worst, 5% behind a human that also focused on intelligence. Until the dwarf catches up and becomes the same. But that is just if you don't allow Tasha's optional rules. Which I would allow. So in my game you would not have a problem.

Your elf bard of 230 years has a high Charisma because he put his 15 there and then added another +2 at level 4, and another +2 at level 8. Is he as Charismatic as a Half-Elf or Human bard? Does it matter? Are you competing against the another bard in the party? How often does that +1 make a difference? Honestly probable a lot less than 5% since not everything you are doing is going to require a roll. Again, in my game I would allow the optional rule and it wouldn't be an issue.

Now I have to ask, are we just talking about PCs? Or are we including NPCs? Because if we are just talking about PCs, as I said, I'm fine with it. Your dwarf has a below average constitution for a "typical" dwarf because reasons, it can be anything you want. Be creative! Of course if your Con is a 12 or 14, you really don't need a reason at all, it is still well within typical dwarf constitution range. And the +2 Cha is easy enough to explain as "He spent all his time playing music and entertaining his friends when he was young." Fair enough! Sounds good! Or it could be as unusual as "was gifted with a fae-like glamour by a nymph after he protected her grove from rampaging goblins." Even better! Now I have a back story I can work with!

But if we remove default racial ASIs from NPCs, what does that say about dwarves in general? Nothing, it says nothing about them. "Bold and hardy, dwarves are know as skilled warriors, miners and workers of stone and metal." Really? Why are they known as such? With the new rules, if you remove all defaults, this is really not true anymore. "Their courage and endurance are also easily a match for any of the larger folk." Well, I guess? In that their courage and endurance are exactly the same. Why even mention it?

I guess the are slow (25' movement), have darkvision, are resistant to poison and have stonecunning. Or do they have stonecunning? Does it count as a proficiency that can be moved around? (Honest question here.)

Hill dwarves are a little tougher because of dwarven toughness, I guess. And mountain dwarves are... slightly better than everyone else at what ever it is they are trying to do? Like, they can an extra +2 ASI somewhere instead of just +1 and get an extra proficiency with any armor, weapon or tool? So they are not better at any one thing in particular, they are just better at... something. I just don't see how that is a better story.

See, but who cares what the NPC stats are?

Blacksmiths in my world's tend to have 16 strength if I bother giving them stats. Why? Because they need to be strong enough that the party is going to register "strong" when they do a thing. 12 isn't enough. Sure, it is stronger than average, but most of the party is going to have as good or better. So the blacksmith isn't strong at all.

Let us say that a Guard Captain is grilling the PCs and they need to lie to him. Decent sized town, I'd say they need to roll a 15 or better. If we reverse engineer that, that would give the Guard a 16 Wisdom to have their passive be a 15. And that is regardless of race. Dragonborn, Human, Dwarf, it doesn't matter, I'm not applying those racial modifiers to their statblock anyways.

And this is really the crux of the matter. Way back when for that "City-State of the Invincible Overlord" some game designer took the time to roll 3d6 in order for every single NPC. And someone else used a bell curve to show what an average stat was, then decided that a +2 to that stat would move the curve, therefore showing a slight increase in the average for a population. However, the truth is, very very very few people care, let only use that sort of method anymore.

You say that the statement, "Bold and hardy, dwarves are know as skilled warriors, miners and workers of stone and metal." is not true without that +2 Con and then a +1 Wisdom or a +2 Strength for hill dwarves and mountain dwarves, but that makes quite literally no sense. First of all, +1 Wisdom doesn't apply to any of being skilled warriors, miners, stonemasons or metalsmiths. +2 Con barely applies. So, what, are Hill dwarves not skilled warriors, miners, stonesmiths and metalsmiths? Of course they are. We portray them as such, we make sure that these facets are reflected in their societies, and we have NPCs say "Hey, if you want the best forged weapons, go talk to the dwarves, master smiths all of them."

And then... make that true. Stats literally never come into it. Especially since, if I need a dwarven warrior to showcase how tough and strong a dwarven warrior is... I'm going to be assigning him stats anyways. I'm not going to roll 3d6 and hope that the slightly increased bell curve is going to give me what I want. I want him to be strong and use an axe, he has an axe and an 18 str.


Circling back up to your first paragraph though, your response was kind of "sure why not" which is a very strange response considering most people advocating for keeping these static ASIs as the default act like these things should have been blatantly obvious facts of the world. But, nothing about Lotusden Halflings tell us they are more perceptive except that +1.

You ask why a hobgoblin can't be smarter than a dwarf, because Illithids are smarter than dwarves. Well, reverse it. Why can't Dwarves be smarter than Hobgoblins, after all, Illithids are smarter than hobgoblins? When your example is equally valid in both directions, it becomes kind of obvious that it is mostly arbitrary.

Why is it okay for Minotaurs and Gnolls to be dumber but not orcs? Well, first that implies that they are being treated as dumber, which varies a lot. And second, if it is okay for Orcs to be dumber because Gnolls are dumber, then it should be okay for dwarves and halflings to be dumber because gnolls are dumber. Neither of those races get intelligence penalties either.

And again, this isn't about NPCs, all Illithids are part of a hive mind of hyper-intelligent psionic brains, being schemers and planners is part of their threat against the players. But, by that same token, so are Yuan-ti and Devils. And, high ranking leaders amongst fiends and Yuan-Ti also tend to have higher intelligence. Illithids more so, but, Illithids also use their intelligence stat in combat, so it needs to be higher for them to have the proper combat threat.

I mean, here is a fun little thing. Think about how smart you would play a Rakshasa. A cunning shapechanger and spellcaster who manipulates groups from the shadows, who is cr 13 and likely was the head of a criminal organization that the party has been tangling with for multiple levels as they slowly unravel decades of plotting. Think about how you would play that character.

Now go look at their intelligence. Did it match what you were thinking about this character doing?

Now take the other famous shapechanging fiend, the Succubus. The temptress who is CR 4, probably a minor side character for the real villain, or a low-level investigation threat. Do you think she is smarter than a CR 13 Rakshasa crime lord? Check.


NPC stats don't matter outside of combat. We will play them how we want, and change the stats if it comes to it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't think I suggested such players would be upset at having to make a decision; only that they'd been perfectly fine not making that decision before, and now they have to consider it. (Though I suppose it could upset some.)

As for the rest of your point, they always had to choose a race and a class, with or without fixed ASIs. But with floating ASIs and no default suggestions, they're required to pick their race, their class and their ASI. It's three decision points instead of two.

Not all decisions are made equal. Yes, it does in theory raise it up to three decisions instead of one, but one of those decisions is usually made as part of one of the others.

And, much like stating that having to choice orange juice or milk on top of your breakfast order, this is such a minor decision 90% of the time. If this were picking something else that was a much more complicated and difficult decision, I could see it, but I've helped people build human characters. Deciding where to put your ASIs is incredibly simple. Unless you are getting to the point where you weigh the pros and cons of every decision... in which case you were likely already doing that with static ASIs. This actually makes that decision easier, since it separates it from the other considerations of the race.

Adding to this: the "NPC Features" table (page 282) in the 5E DMG provides a list of ability score adjustments for both PC and monster races, meant to be applied to the NPC stat blocks for any character race other than human. These adjustments are explicitly being applied to NPCs, not the exceptional PCs, and the adjustments from PC races are consistent with the ones for PCs in the PHB. The idea that the PC ASIs represented archetypes distinct from the biology of those races, rather than the way these races simply were, only appeared in the lead-up to Tasha.

Of course, they're allowed to change their mind. But it feels more like PR than fact that it was always meant to be this way.

I think the point that that is an option, not the default, applies here.

 

[Faolyn]

Of course I am discussing PCs. Why on earth would you think I am discussing the entire race? I have not stated nor ever implied that I was discussing an entire race.

Floating ASIs will allow the halfling to be more similar to the half-orc which now can be more similar to the elf.
vs.
Racial ASIs do not want the halfling to be more similar to the half-orc which now can be more similar to the elf.

I admit I could have misinterpreted what you wrote, but to me, it feels like you are saying that all the different people of a race will feel the same, and that all races will feel a same. The halfling will be more similar to the half-orc. It's a phrase often used to indicate that all members of a group are pretty much the same. You definitely don't seem to be saying "a halfling might end up with a backstory that makes that individual feel similar to the (stereo)typical half-orcs." You seem to be saying "all halflings will end up like all half-orcs."

Which is kind of odd, when you consider that you could have a half-orc barbarian and a halfling paladin--or vice versa--and they would end up being incredibly dissimilar even though they both have +2 Strength.

I am curious. What about my statement declares it is not about allowing players to customize their characters.

"Floating ASIs view it through the window of race/class combinations. It will increase the number of halfling fighters, half-orc wizards and elven barbarians.
vs.
Racial ASIs view it through a race only window. They feel race and class are two separate components of the game."

I am honestly asking. How do this get read as you are not allowed to customize your characters? When I say it will increase the variety of race/class combinations, how does that mean you are not allowed to customize?

Along with the other things you have written, it seems to me that you're viewing a wider variety of race/class combinations (with associated bonuses) to be less desirable. Especially when combined with you not wanting a halfling that feels like a half-orc.

I have posed this question twice. Show me a list of racial feats that don't start to bend towards specific classes.

Why are you talking about feats when I'm talking about culture?

We tried earlier. There were six listed that were neutral. After that, they started to lean, the same exact way Racial ASIs lean. So I asked again. Because writing and fleshing out a race's history, origins, trails and tribulations, migrations, religion, language accumulation, popular culture, holidays, food, songs, style of living, etc. is pretty par for the course for many on this board. But, attaching it to mechanics to make the culture feel unique and balanced compared to others is difficult. That is why I have asked. Please, if you re willing, I would love to see a list of traits for say, halfings (since they are the race to discuss apparently)

What traits of a halfling that lead to a culture?

Spoiler: Spoilered For Size

Hmm, well, looking at Brave and Lucky. OK, so this particular halfling culture builds no towns of their own. No shires or farming villages. The closest they get are building Hostels (actual name to be changed, likely) inside of larger folks' cities. These Hostels aren't actually homes per se, because these halflings are, effectively, a culture of adventures. They travel forth in small groups that consist of friends and siblings, and they see the Hostels are basically hotels, places to drop off loot, recover from injuries, train their skills, regale the kiddies with tales of daring-do, and so on. They see themselves as the pinnacle of the Hero archetype--and as a side effect, view other races as mostly being rather cowardly and simply not very good at getting themselves out of trouble. How the halflings perform their deeds is up to the individual: through cunning wit, magical power, physical might, stealth and precision--it's all good. As long as it makes a good story for the bards to tell. It also means that the people who choose to stay at the Hostels permanently (no talent for or interest in adventuring, have a permanent injury, whatever) are considered second class and are treated as "just the help."

Most of these "Herolings" can trace their ancestry back to at least a couple of heroic halflings (childbearing is something done early and often; childrearing is left to people who are either retired adventurers or to people who are specifically hired for the job--and since in the real world, pregnancy lengths are correlated mostly to the weight of the newborn, plus some extra time in humans for brain development, this means halfling pregnancies are short). As I said, their groups are almost always comprised of halfling; should one of these "herolings" choose to adventure with a non-halfling, it means the halfling either really respects their ability, or will constantly halflspain how real adventurers work.

Halflings of other cultures tend to see these guys as nuts and chronic exaggerators.

And the orcs?

Spoiler: Spoilered For Size

My orcs started with the premise that they are non-obligate carnivores, and here's the short version. They can eat vegetation and grains, but the bulk of their diet is meat. So this divides them into two parts. The first main culture are the Hunters, and I'm seeing three subcultures here. First, there are the Wanderers. They follow the herds. Herds of what would depend on the world and terrain--could be anything from buffalo to hadrosaurs to Athasian-style giant bugs. And whether these orcs travel via animal back, walking with animal-pulled travois, or riding in covered wagons is currently up in the air. They're a generally peaceful lot, unless someone tries to block their migratory route. Then there are the Wardens, who have claimed a large area of land as their territory and shepherd the wild animals within. They make sure the animals thrive and only kill what they need to to survive. They don't shy away from using traps; they don't have a need to go mano-a-mano with a moose if they don't have to, as long as they don't overhunt or overtrap. The Wardens are much more territorial than the Wanderers are and tend to take a very dim view on poaching, and a much dimmer view on people who try to claim even part of their territory for themselves. The third subculture of the Hunters would be the Soul Eaters. They believe that they gain the strength of the creatures they eat. That means that these orcs eschew deer and bunnies in favor of owlbears, gryphons, behir, dragons, even other humanoids, as humanoids are the strongest prey of all. They don't eat sentient beings because they're evil; they think they are truly honoring their prey by eating them. And maybe they are; maybe the gods have worked out a deal where if you're eaten by a Soul Eater, you get an extra bag of happiness in the afterlife. However, their diet puts them at odds with basically everyone else, making them into major villains.

The second main culture consists not of hunters, but of people who raise animals to eat, in large quantities. And they probably sell excess meat to other people as well. No, they're not mere farmers--they're Ranchers. Which, of course, leads to Orc Cowboys. Git along, li'l worgies! Just insert your herd animals of choice.

So, whether you think these halfling and orc cultures (which, as I said, aren't fully fleshed out) are cool or really stupid, you have to admit that none of them require a +2 in any particular stat.

No, by having racial ASIs you are stating PCs have a bonus in this ability. They still have the point buy variance. As you have stated many times, they don't have to place their +2 into their primary stat. Just as they do not have to choose a class whose primary stat is their ASI bonus.

How do you come to that conclusion? Can't one culture reflect intelligence through book learning and another through mechanical aptitude? Can't one culture reflect strength by fighting and wrestling and feats of strength and another by swinging a pick axe all day?

What's more interesting to you: a culture of miners, where every member of that culture is at least partially a miner, or a culture of people that relies heavily on mining but people actually take on a wide variety of roles, not all of which relate to mining.

As I said many times, it all boils down to the extra +1. Mechanical benefits, stereotypical combinations and contribute to the party means I can start with a 16 instead of 15. Which really goes to show how important the ASI is to people - on both sides. Again, there is no right or wrong. I feel that the move away is clunky and not well thought out. That's all.

Or, again, it could mean they don't start with an 8 in a stat. Or they have two 15s instead of one.

 

[JEB]

Not all decisions are made equal. Yes, it does in theory raise it up to three decisions instead of one, but one of those decisions is usually made as part of one of the others.

It doesn't "in theory" turn one decision (race) into two (race + ASI). It objectively does this. Unless, of course, defaults continue to be included as well; then it's back to being just one decision, unless you choose to take advantage of that extra flexibility.

I think the point that that is an option, not the default, applies here.

It's as optional as any DM decision in the game, sure. But they're pretty clear in core 5E that if you want to make a nonhuman NPC, such as an elf, the default adjustments from the PHB and/or DMG are how you do it. Putting it simply, NPCs and PCs had the same ASIs. Again, they seem to have changed their mind on ASIs in 2020, but at the beginning of 5E, they saw things differently.