D&D 5E Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)

[Yaarel]

What I mean is that 5E already offers very limited feat selections.

Would character creation involve selecting a racial feat as a separate part of character creation?

Steps to Create a Character
1. Generate abilities.
2. Choose a race. Decide its ability improvements, trait, and feat.
3. Choose a culture. Decide its background.
4. Choose a class. Decide its archetype.

If no, what would entice a player to choose one of the racial feats over something like Sharpshooter for one of their limited choices?

The feats need to be equal enough that they are tough choices.

The elf race would not mention the Sharpshooter feat among the elf feats. But a player can mix-and-match freely. A player with rules mastery would think carefully among all of the feats.

Also, would a class which gets more feat choices allow a character to learn to be more elfy than other classes?

Good question. Balancewise that seems fine. Flavorwise, I am unsure that I want a Fighter to be more elfish than a Wizard, so race feats might be restrict to every fourth level. (If I recall correctly, every class has a feat at every fourth level, not counting 19 instead of 20.)

I'm not opposed to the idea. I'm trying to gain a better idea of what it looks like in D&D 5E.

Dungeon Fantasy does something similar by offering racial power-ups as advancement options.

I am unfamiliar with Dungeon Fantasy, so you would need to explain any examples that you have in mind for comparison.

 

[Argyle King]

Steps to Create a Character
1. Generate abilities.
2. Choose a race. Decide its ability improvements, trait, and feat.
3. Choose a culture. Decide its background.
4. Choose a class. Decide its archetype.


The feats need to be equal enough that they are tough choices.

The elf race would not mention the Sharpshooter feat among the elf feats. But a player can mix-and-match freely. A player with rules mastery would think carefully among all of the feats.


Good question. Balancewise that seems fine. Flavorwise, I am unsure that I want a Fighter to be more elfish than a Wizard, so race feats might be restrict to every fourth level. (If I recall correctly, every class has a feat at every fourth level, not counting 19 instead of 20.)


I am unfamiliar with Dungeon Fantasy, so you would need to explain any examples that you have in mind for comparison.

Dungeon Fantasy*, being "powered by GURPS," is built a lot differently than D&D, but the playstyle and how things are put together into "templates" and "lenses" are meant to somewhat mimic classes and races as found in something like D&D.

You get 250 points to build a character.
You spend those points on packages of traits.
For example, you could buy the Elf Package or Knight (basically that game's fighter) package.

So, let's say you choose those options. You're an Elven Knight.

When it's time to level-up, you have points with which to purchase new abilities. The Elven Fighter character could choose from either the Knight list of options or the Elf list of options.


*note: There are two similar but different products. There were/are a line of Dungeon Fantasy pdfs which existed before the rpg. There is also a Dungeon Fantasy rpg which took the ideas found in the pdfs and created a stand-alone (boxed set) rpg which does not require having the GURPS books to play.

☆Edit: If you ever check out DFRPG, I would highly recommend Douglas Cole's "Delvers to Grow." I've found that 250 point characters can be a little overwhelming for some new players. Character creation is easy and easy to understand, but the options might be overwhelming... starting at 250 is like starting at around 4th level: pretty easy to understand if you've played D&D before, but perhaps a lot of moving parts if you're new to an entire system.
"Delvers to Grow" breaks things down into smaller chunks and less points; I've had brand new players (as in entirely new to rpgs) who were able to use it and make characters in about 15-20 minutes.

 

[Yaarel]

Dungeon Fantasy*, being "powered by GURPS," is built a lot differently than D&D, but the playstyle and how things are put together into "templates" and "lenses" are meant to somewhat mimic classes and races as found in something like D&D.

You get 250 points to build a character.
You spend those points on packages of traits.
For example, you could buy the Elf Package or Knight (basically that game's fighter) package.

So, let's say you choose those options. You're an Elven Knight.

When it's time to level-up, you have points with which to purchase new abilities. The Elven Fighter character could choose from either the Knight list of options or the Elf list of options.


*note: There are two similar but different products. There were/are a line of Dungeon Fantasy pdfs which existed before the rpg. There is also a Dungeon Fantasy rpg which took the ideas found in the pdfs and created a stand-alone (boxed set) rpg which does not require having the GURPS books to play.

Ok, I sorta get it.

250 points: that is alot of tiny design spaces!

I am happy picking one big feat (or combining two half feats).

I would think such a system would operate a bit like pathfinder 2, where you select racial feats separate from your class (I haven't played that game and only looked through the srd a bit). Probably fewer, more powerful, more thematic options.

Yeah, the ideal would be. Certain higher levels would be dedicated to take an other race feat. The race feats are powerful thematic options. I am unsure how adding a free race feat would affect the gaming balance. Maybe at level 9 and 17 wouldnt be so bad. But currently I am understanding that besides the race feat gained as part of character creation, the other race feats at higher levels would simply compete with other kinds of feats when choosing a feat, and a player might not choose a race feat.

 

[Argyle King]

Ok, I sorta get it.

250 points: that is alot of tiny design spaces!

I am happy picking one big....

Yeah, kinda.

The chunks normally have point values, so it's not 250 options.

I'm away from books, so I'm making the following examples up:

Playing a Knight would be 250, but there would be small packages of traits (i.e. option A for 20 points if you use sword and shield; option B for 20 points if you use two-handed weapons).

Being an Elf costs whatever amount of points. So maybe you choose one less Knight chunk at one of the points and instead choose the chunk of stuff associated with being an Elf.

Later on, you do some adventures and gain 50 points to use on new abilities. You might spend 50 points on one big chunk of stuff from the Knight list (like multi-attack, better defenses, or whatever). Alternatively, maybe you buy more Elfy things like bonuses to being quiet in the woods or whatever.

At the same table, the player playing a Dwarven Knight has access to the same Knight list but can't pick from the Elf list. Though, they can pick from the Dwarf list.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Evil human organizations are occasionally the bad guys. I don't do much in the way of politics with the humans. I also occasionally have a good orc or hobgoblin encountered. I just don't generally do it en masse.

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question.

How does having evil human organizations not count as "complex real world angst"? What makes them immune to this effect?

No. I've just made virtually all hobgoblin encounters with evil hobgoblins. Even if I were to tell them that all the races have all alignments, they'd still primarily be encountering bad guys, because it's D&D. It's a game designed for lots of fights and good guys don't generally fight good guys.

Of course you don't fight the good guys. But you still encounter them. Unless that halfling village is full of evil cultists. Or the dwarven traders are secretly cannibals. You encounter the "good guys" all the time.

So, again, if you have all the dwarves being good people who are trying to help you, and all the hobgoblins being evil people trying to hurt you... why would anyone go looking for evil dwarves or good hobgoblins? You've made the distinction clear. A group of dwarves in a mine? Allies who are good. A group of hobgoblins in a mine? Enemies who are evil. It doesn't matter anything else... which is the problem that a lot of us have, that it starts to not matter anything else except that they are of the poperly labeled "good guy" or "bad guy" race.

It didn't, really, though. The Nazis weren't mass murdering a race that was actually evil. The gnoll thing would make it a little weird, but it wouldn't really reinforce the Nazi ideology.

To those of us who were actually playing the game? Yes, it did. Because it meant that they were correct that certain people are born evil and need to be destroyed via a "final solution". They were just wrong about who.

It took our group all of about a minutes to realize this after a player brought it up. That we were heading for a genocide solution. And we were "in the right" because the individuals we were genociding were an "evil race" who threatened our way of life. Exact same plan, exact same reason, we were just "correct". Which reinforces their message as being fundamentally correct.

Huh. I wish I would have known that before I never got into discussions about real world good and evil when discussing the game until the invention of D&D internet forums.

Really? So what was the evil you were fighting against?

Murder? Real
Tyranny? Real
Genocide/Omnicide? Real
Thievery and covetousness? Real
War? Real

What evils did your players confront in the game that aren't real evils of our world?

As I said, not all races have a type. Were I going to make an attempt at it, though, I might go opposite the element. So maybe a Fire Genasi water/ice wizard or something.

Cool. So, Genasi have no type, and that's fine.

So why is it a problem to widen the type for others? Why is "I can't play against type" such a big concern if we have these races that don't have a type to begin with?

I've seen one dwarven wizard and it was in 2e. And yes, I know they couldn't be wizards in 2e. That's what made him cool. Dwarves are also typed in other ways as I mentioned in an earlier post.

Why take something away from people? As I explained to you earlier in the thread. It's always better to add something than to take something away. People don't get nearly as upset when you add. Lots get upset when you try and take something away. Leave dwarves alone and enjoy your non-typed Genasi

So, you want to take Dwarven wizards away from me, so that other people can feel cool by bucking the trend and playing a dwarven wizard?

We are adding. We are adding wizards to dwarves. This is exactly what you are saying people don't get upset about, and is exactly what we are doing. Why shouldn't we add wizards to dwarves? What's wrong with that?

Why try to homogenize things? If you have both typed and untyped races, that's the best of both worlds. Everyone can play what they want. You can pick non-typed races to play and someone who wants to go against type can play the races that have types.

Homogenize things too much and there's no point in even having races. Just make everyone human and let them pick a few abilities or roll a few abilities from a table.

I didn't realize my Genasi was indistinguishable from a human. We aren't homogenizing anything, We are adding archetypes to places where they haven't been existing. This should be a good thing, correct. We are taking nothing away. Nothing is being lost.

 

[Yaarel]

Yeah, kinda.

The chunks normally have point values, so it's not 250 options.

I'm away from books, so I'm making the following examples up:

Playing a Knight would be 250, but there would be small packages of traits (i.e. option A for 20 points if you use sword and shield; option B for 20 points if you use two-handed weapons).

Being an Elf costs whatever amount of points. So maybe you choose one less Knight chunk at one of the points and instead choose the chunk of stuff associated with being an Elf.

Later on, you do some adventures and gain 50 points to use on new abilities. You might spend 50 points on one big chunk of stuff from the Knight list (like multi-attack, better defenses, or whatever). Alternatively, maybe you buy more Elfy things like bonuses to being quiet in the woods or whatever.

I like math and I enjoy numbers. But I find the big number of points to spend ... distracting.

It is the same reason that I dont want the 5e Psion to use spell points (even tho I loved the 3e Psion in its day). I prefer the 5e Psion class use a spellcasting chassis resembling the Warlock chassis.



The units of design space that I tend to use for 5e are:

1 feat = 2 half-feats = 8 proficiencies

The "proficiency" unit is a bit of a misnomer because some proficiencies are more powerful than others. For example, 1 feat can grant proficiency with all armors and shield calculating the following costs.

Full Armor Feat
• 2 proficiencies: Shield
• 2 proficiencies: Light Armor
• 1 proficiency: Medium Armor (requires Light Armor)
• 3 proficiencies: Heavy Armor (requires Medium Armor)

A feat is just presented as feat. But a player with rules mastery could deconstruct it and with DM agreement swap one of the features for an other one of equivalent value.

At the same table, the player playing a Dwarven Knight has access to the same Knight list but can't pick from the Elf list. Though, they can pick from the Dwarf list.

I dont mind multirace characters, who are part elf or part dragon, or whatever. If at a higher level, a player wants a feat from an other race, that is fine. Ask how it is that the ancestral trait is only emerging now. Maybe gaining dragonbreath is part of draconic puberty when shedding a dragonskin? Maybe the player wants to reflavor dragonbreath as something more elfish, maybe like skyey lightning from ones hands?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Within the public consciousness of fantasy? Agree to disagree, completely.

Avatar the Last Air Bender. Massively successful.

I can't even count the number of fantasy stories about people being born with a connection to fire, earth, wind or water. Final Fantasy did it. Big part of a lot of games like Genshin Impact.

Heck, how many superheroes are there who can manipulate fire?

This is a massive concept.

I'd disagree again. Something that is essentially 'Angelic ancestry' is way more than just some kind of story trope. Its not even that they are partially divine, or 'otherwordly' but that they are partially of a Good (capital G) entity with all the associations you would then be able to extrapolate from that.

When your Grand Dad is an actual Angel, a being of literal Goodness, its a bit more meaningful to 'go against type' and become a petty thief or thug anti-hero, than if you are 'just' a human.

Petty thief. Cool.

So, how is my swashbuckling duelist who fights to honor the Goddess with honorable and beautiful combat going against type?

Meanwhile, what if I was Aasimar who was a paladin of Conquest whose goal was to destroy the church of my father. Against type or not?


That was my point. To "play against type" as an Aasimar isn't as simple as saying "I'm a Rogue" and going at it. Because that can still be "in type". It is the story elements that put you for or against type. Not the class.

Druid's very much have their own definition, and while they are a class and modern game design doesnt limit classes very often, they are exceptional enough as is in terms of their (as often portrayed in FR/D&D anyway) as being fairly militant in their adherence to their own codes. I think they actually are essentially going against type.

And, I'll reiterate. No one has ever told me that playing a human druid was playing "against type" for a human. Certainly the idea that humans can be anything has persisted through the editions. There has never been a version of the game where a human druid was penalized in any way.

So, you can go back and say it is now, but it never has been.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I would think such a system would operate a bit like pathfinder 2, where you select racial feats separate from your class (I haven't played that game and only looked through the srd a bit). Probably fewer, more powerful, more thematic options.

I have often wanted this, like around levels 5, 10 or 11, and 17 you can get a racial power that highlights your growing into your racial abilities and archetypes, but that don't require you to for go an ASI or other feat.

 

[Scribe]

Avatar the Last Air Bender. Massively successful.

I can't even count the number of fantasy stories about people being born with a connection to fire, earth, wind or water. Final Fantasy did it. Big part of a lot of games like Genshin Impact.

Heck, how many superheroes are there who can manipulate fire?

This is a massive concept.

It is, but in the realm of fantasy, historically? Avatar is a modern thing. Ask people what a dwarf is, they know, ask them what an elementally touched person is? No way its as tight a definition. If you disagree, fair, but no way I will believe 'Avatar' is tightly defined as Dwarf.

Petty thief. Cool.

So, how is my swashbuckling duelist who fights to honor the Goddess with honorable and beautiful combat going against type?

Meanwhile, what if I was Aasimar who was a paladin of Conquest whose goal was to destroy the church of my father. Against type or not?


That was my point. To "play against type" as an Aasimar isn't as simple as saying "I'm a Rogue" and going at it. Because that can still be "in type". It is the story elements that put you for or against type. Not the class.

Fair for sure. But thats why my immediate answer was 'fallen aasimar' unless I'm thinking of a different thread.

And, I'll reiterate. No one has ever told me that playing a human druid was playing "against type" for a human. Certainly the idea that humans can be anything has persisted through the editions. There has never been a version of the game where a human druid was penalized in any way.

So, you can go back and say it is now, but it never has been.

Fine. I dont associate humanity with druid, and I certainly dont put them in the 'nature attuned' camp, when in a fantasy setting. That isnt a Human trope, to me.

 

[Argyle King]

I like math and I enjoy numbers. But I find the big number of points to spend ... distracting.

It is the same reason that I dont want the 5e Psion to use spell points (even tho I loved the 3e Psion in its day). I prefer the 5e Psion class use a spellcasting chassis resembling the Warlock chassis.



The units of design space that I tend to use for 5e are:

1 feat = 2 half-feats = 8 proficiencies

The "proficiency" unit is a bit of a misnomer because some proficiencies are more powerful than others. For example, 1 feat can grant proficiency with all armors and shield calculating the following costs.

Full Armor Feat
• 2 proficiencies: Shield
• 2 proficiencies: Light Armor
• 1 proficiency: Medium Armor (requires Light Armor)
• 3 proficiencies: Heavy Armor (requires Medium Armor)

A feat is just presented as feat. But a player with rules mastery could deconstruct it and with DM agreement swap one of the features for an other one of equivalent value.




I dont mind multirace characters, who are part elf or part dragon, or whatever. If at a higher level, a player wants a feat from an other race, that is fine. Ask how it is that the ancestral trait is only emerging now. Maybe gaining dragonbreath is part of draconic puberty when shedding a dragonskin? Maybe the player wants to reflavor dragonbreath as something more elfish, maybe like skyey lightning from ones hands?

I think that's something which an individual table can do.

Even in D&D that's possible. Though, typically, different options tend to be different lists to give a reason for the different categories to exist and be distinct.

That's not always true though. In Edge of the Empire (the Star Wars rpg,) you can pick options from outside of your normal list but they cost more. So, the Medic could hypothetically choose options from the Bounty Hunter list but doing so is more expensive.

I think, in regards to what you're saying for D&D, I'm okay with the overall idea, but I'd like it more if 5th Edition had more opportunities to choose feats OR if the new racial/cultural/whatever options were picked from a list of things that came from a different list.

Maybe there could be "feats" for the class, combat, and etc choices.

Then there would also be racial "knacks" for the other stuff.

I bring up the idea of two different resources because I remember 3rd Edition getting put of hand with trying to balance all of the feats against each other. A lot of flavorful and cool choices were never picked because they had to compete with mechanically better combat-related things.