D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[FireLance]

I think my current preference is for each race to have access to one or two racial feats (or "gifts" to use the A5E term) at character creation.

Ability score increases, or a package of ability score increases and decreases, or a +1 ability score adjustment plus a minor feature, can be provided as one or more racial feat options.

DMs and groups who don't want to use these ability score adjusting feat options because they are concerned about racist implications or shoehorning certain races into specific roles can decide on this during Session Zero.

 

[Maxperson]

It depends on which races have "tribes". Are they "primitives"? While the "advanced" "civilized" races dont have tribes?

That would depend.

The word "tribe" has only a reallife meaning.

So does every other word in existence. That doesn't mean that their use in a fantasy game ties them to any particular real world culture.

"TRIBE" in the 5e Monster Manual
• goblin and hobgoblin (entry: bugbear)
• goblin (goblin monarch "glorified boss" over "lairs")
• hobgoblin ("tribal bands")

Okay. So they have tribes. So what? None of those is connected to any real world tribal culture.

• centaur ("roam wilderness far from laws", "conflict when encounter settlements", "a centaur that cant keep pace with the rest of its tribe is left behind")

Which specific real world culture is this?

• desert nomadic tribes (entry: blue dragon)

Okay. And?

• Chaotic Evil Humanoids (entry: red dragon)

You don't get to use orcs multiple times.

• orc ("tribes like plagues", "bloodlust", "savaging", "roving bands", "no innovation", "the tribe en masse carve a bloody path", "sate their appetites", "rampaging horde", "war chief")

Which specific real world tribe is this?

• giants: "isolated tribes and clans", "shamans", opposite "empires"

Which specific real world tribe is this?

• lizardfolk ("arent skilled artisans", "lizardfolk shamans", "prisoners eaten by the tribe")

Which specific real world tribe is this?

• merfolk ("tribes and kingdoms", "lack means to write books")

merfolk are advanced enough to have kingdoms and are still tribal.

• quaggoth ("never an enlightened species", "brutal", "savage", "nocturnal arboreal hunters", "cannibalism", "ferocity", "tribal shaman")
• troglodyte ("savage, degenerate, constant state of war", "loathsome, blood, dung", "filth", "too simple to plan", "raids", "hunting", "sadistic pleasure", "no mercy", "scavenging", "the largest become the leaders of the tribe", "make little", "a troglodyte tribe might be torn apart by battles over a single longsword", "demonic", "monstrous")
• flying snake ("tribespeople and cultists")
• druid ("forest, wilderness", "protect the natural from civilization", "tribal shamans heal")
• tribal warrior ("beyond civilization, fishing, hunting")

Which specific real world tribe is these?

If you're going to claim real world tribal connections, you need to show us which tribes they are connected to.

The impression from the Monster Manual descriptions suggests a poor opinion about what a "tribe" is, and which "races" should have them.

It suggests less than advanced technology, yes. It does not suggest a poor opinion of tribes at all. The MM is primarily evil creatures, so of course those tribes are going to be less savory. That doesn't mean that there aren't a ton of good tribes out there. It just means that those good tribes aren't intended to be used as enemies of the PCs.

These kinds of stereotypes about "tribes" are highly problematic.

If you ignore facts like the tons of good tribes and invent connections to real world tribes, sure.

 

[Maxperson]

We're not just looking at one person's rolling, though, so this is kinda moot.

Then go with 5 people, the size of a D&D group. The rolled stats that enter the game are virtually guaranteed not to be average.

And when we average those higher and lower results, what do we have?

Something other than average the vast majority of the time.

Your conclusion does not follow.

Yes it does. You get a possible advantage in a slightly higher average if you gamble on stat rolling. You get slightly lower stats if you point buy or array. These are facts. You can look at the PHB and see that objective truth.

No, no it doesn't.

Yes, yes it does. If you want to maintain how things are now and just raise the bar a bit, anyway.

 

[Lanefan]

For example, even a single fixed +1 creates the appearance of racism among humanlike Humanoid characters. It is like saying, this race has an average IQ that is 10 points lower. While this superior race has an IQ that is 10 points higher.

Which is perfectly fine.

Some fantasy species are simply, on average, flat-out better or worse at some things than other fantasy species simply due to what they are, and I for one have no problem with the mechanics reflecting this.

On average Orcs are stronger than Humans, who in turn are stronger than Hobbits. Dwarves are tougher than Humans. Elves are more dextrous than...well, pretty much everybody. The same holds true for Int, Wis and Cha* between species; so slap on the requisite bonuses and penalties and let's get on with the game.

* - one thing I don't think 5e has kept is the idea of one's apparent Charisma being different based on who you're dealing with; for example a Dwarf who is Cha 13 to Humans might count as Cha 15 when dealing with other Dwarves and come across as only Cha 11 when dealing with Elves.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Which is perfectly fine.

Some fantasy species are simply, on average, flat-out better or worse at some things than other fantasy species simply due to what they are, and I for one have no problem with the mechanics reflecting this.

Not fine with me.

There's so much race-based unpleasantness and not just unwillingness to examine it but overt hostility toward doing so, I don't need it baked into the mechanics.

 

[Lanefan]

An "aptitude" trait which applies to a group of related skills and provides the following benefits:

1. If you make a skill check from that group, and you aren't proficient, you get half your proficiency bonus*.
2. When you have the option to gain proficiency in a skill, you can instead gain two skills from that group.

This provides the following advantages over ability scores:

• A bunch of number-crunching at the start of chargen is totally eliminated.
• In play, you only need to know two numbers: Your proficiency bonus, and half your proficiency bonus. I can't tell you how many times I've watched novice players stumble over which numbers to add to a given roll.
• Independence at chargen. You can pay for aptitude without also paying for a lot of other stuff you may not want or care about (e.g., saving throws, attack and damage bonuses, the option to multiclass).
• Related to the previous, choosing a descriptor to flesh out your character concept ("educated/scholarly") no longer requires you to sacrifice combat effectiveness if you don't happen to belong to the right class (wizard).

*Proficiency bonus would be increased to compensate for the lack of ability mods.

Reading those four bullet points together makes me think you're not only after elimination of ability scores but elimination of classes as well.

 

[clearstream]

I think that's a fine personal interpretation, but many posts in this thread alone make mention of floating or 'none' before any of what you described enters the picture.

It's a misrepresentation of the poll.

But as they say, 'Lies, damn lies, and Statistics'.

38.7% players want race to be a determinant of ability scores. 50.6% don't. 10.8% could fall in either or neither camp.

@Yaarel is calling the case where you ability scores are determined by something other than race, 'cultural'. Perhaps that is too broad: it captures the sense of nature versus nurture, but doesn't leave space for a player who decides to put their floating +2 on Dex because (in their take on the game world) elves are dextrous as a race and their character is no exception.

It's striking for me that more people here now prefer not to lock characters into racial stereotypes.

 

[clearstream]

These boards are combative by nature it seems, no harm no foul, apologies if I gave the wrong impression.

That does seem to have slowly changed. Gods know that I occasionally strike a combative tone, when my intent and desire is to advance the arguments (in the sense of investigations or rigorous discussions) together.

 

[clearstream]

I think my current preference is for each race to have access to one or two racial feats (or "gifts" to use the A5E term) at character creation.

I'm the same - I'd like to have a list of gifts for each race, and player chooses one or two of them for their character. I'm not sure if I would see gifts including stat-bumps or not?

This would also open up the possibility of racial gifts being world specific - so that where say elves have gifts around litheness in one game world, perhaps in another they have traded that out for something else.

 

[Lyxen]

I like my fantasy races diverse too.

I just don't like D&D's ultraconservative design forcing it to constantly bandaid itself later.

The ultraconservatism of some is the tradition of others, as for the "bandaid", it is indeed being forced on the game for reasons that might be noble at their heart, but more than a bit corrupted and "motivated" in this case. While tackling nothing of the possible problems since the species are totally untouched, the only thing that this has created is a blander game where characters technically just ressemble each other more and more, and where cultural differences are being frowned down as well. This is not what I call a road to diversity and vibrancy.

It's easier still to offer a few options and let the table choose which option they want.

Why not, as long as people are not deluding themselves and others about why they want the changes, it's just for power (where it is absolutely not needed to have an effective character and have fun).