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

[Maxperson]

By the way, I never agree with Max! )

Neither do I! We agree on something!

 

[Yaarel]

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.

About race feats while leveling.

I agree with you, @Malmuria, @Chaosmancer , and others about allocating a design space to choose a race feat at certain levels, without competing with the other feats.

Ideally: I want the regular feats at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 20. Then alternate race feats for advancement of traits, and cultural background feats for advancement of noncombat proficiencies and assets. Thus race feats at levels 2, 10, and 18, and cultural background feats at 6 and 14. The level 2 race feat helps lessen front loading, and the level 10 race feat is when powerful race traits can come online in a balanced way. The level 18 race feat can be for things like "archfey" and so on. The high level bacground feats can relate to establishing a vocation and later becoming a prominent leader, such as the founder of a wizardry college, or of a castle of a warrior noble.

Possibly, to schedule these feats at certain levels needs tweaking the inconsistent designs of the various classes, to reserve space for these race feats at the same levels. Such a substantive overhaul seems less easy to do.

On the other hand, maybe it is balanced to simply add the race feats for free? Several settings grant a free setting feat at level 1. So far, no one has complained about gaming balance problems. (5e is amazingly robust in this sense.́)

The race feat at level "0", during character creation is balanced. There is no power-up. It is merely using the Custom Lineage format to list what a race can do. Getting an extra free race feat at level 2 might not be a problem, in the same sense that a setting feat seems ok. By level 10, a race feat might also not be a problem. Who knows what is or isnt a problem for mechanics at level 18! But a race feat might be a drop in the ocean of those exalted levels.

The proposed background feats are strictly noncombat, so dont affect the combat pillar of the game, and are mainly for the social pillar, and possibly the exploration pillar.

If DMs are interested in experimenting with race feats, give Xanathars feats for free at level 2, as well as any standard feats that seem pertinent to the tropes that a race can explore. The worldbuilder DMs can create new feats too to support various race concepts.

 

[Maxperson]

So your games have never featured murder, tyranny, theft, or war? What do you guys do? What are the bad guys up to, just writing mean things in letters and mailing them to the king?

I said they never encounter real world murder, tyranny, theft or war. And they don't. I never kill my players(or anyone else), tyrannize them, steal from them, or enlist them in the army.

Fantasy versions are not connected to the real world by anything other than the same word. No war of mine has a connection to the 100 Years War or Vietnam. No tyrannical leader is connected to Yasser Arafat or Putin. None of that. Any such "connections" are created as fictions in the mind of the beholder, as is common these days.

Then how do you know it was evil? How did you have a plot where someone was murdered, without in any way connecting that to the evils of murder and how it hurts people? This truly boggles me, like, how can you possibly do this?

Wait. Your group has to stop whenever the PCs encounter a murder and discuss the real world implications of murder and good/evil in order to understand that the murder in game was evil? That seems very exhausting.

My group doesn't do that. We just accept the evil of the murder with no discussion of real world good and evil and we continue playing.

So... if you are cool with Dwarven Wizards, and we are making it so people will play dwarven wizards... what's the problem? They are still against type according to you, so what horrible and terrible thing are we doing? What are we taking away?

By making a dwarven wizard? Nothing. That has never been my objection in this thread.

Your ability to play a dwarven wizard who has a 14 INT? Nope, you can still do that. So what is the problem?

So, you honestly believe that a +1 strength is the only thing that makes a race different.

Because, by this very argument, if they all get the same racial bonuses, then what you are saying is that Orcs, Minotaurs, Half-Orcs, Goliaths and Ravenite Dragonborn are all the same race, but with varied looks and differing abilities. Because they all have the same racial bonus, +2 Strength, +1 Con.

And again, quoting your exact words from the post, so you can't turn around and say I'm misinterpreting you.

Of course you are. You know I said ALL races, not just a few of them. You continue to show that you cannot or will not understand what I am saying about racial bonuses, so I will continue not to discuss that with you.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I'd personally go with higher ability score generation, drop racial ASIs, and focus on giving them some interesting abilities instead, I feel like a lot of racial abilities are just kinda lame. Probably more racial feats too.

 

[the Jester]

This is actually something else to consider. Have we ever considered that the desire to "play against type" is indicative of a problem? Not the people who do it for the mechanical challenge, but the idea that you don't want to play the same character. Think about it for a second, how many classes are "against type" for a dwarf?

Barbarian is borderline. Many dwarves using heavy armor and such makes barbarian sometimes a weird fit.

Bard? Against Type.
Druid? Against Type.
Monk? Against type.
Ranger? Against type.
Rogue? Against type.
Wizard? Against type.
Warlock? Against type.
Sorcerer Against type.

What isn't against type? Fighter, Cleric, Paladin.

I think you're conflating not mechanically optimized with against type, and they are not the same. Taking dwarves, I wouldn't call a dwarven rogue or ranger against type, and bards and druids are iffy examples too, in my opinion.

 

[the Jester]

You know, one massive improvement in 5e over the last couple of editions is the speed of character generation, and many of the suggestions here basically boil down to, "Take more time and do more customizing of your race". I think it's worth remembering that you're making a 10-20 minute process substantially longer when you introduce more decision points and more stuff to read (e.g. racial feats as part of your building process).

I never want another version of D&D where it takes more than an hour to build a 1st level character. That's just a personal preference, but my God is it a strong one. Honestly, if I can't generate a character in 15 minutes, the game has failed at one of the things I truly believe should be a major priority.

 

[Maxperson]

You know, one massive improvement in 5e over the last couple of editions is the speed of character generation, and many of the suggestions here basically boil down to, "Take more time and do more customizing of your race". I think it's worth remembering that you're making a 10-20 minute process substantially longer when you introduce more decision points and more stuff to read (e.g. racial feats as part of your building process).

I never want another version of D&D where it takes more than an hour to build a 1st level character. That's just a personal preference, but my God is it a strong one. Honestly, if I can't generate a character in 15 minutes, the game has failed at one of the things I truly believe should be a major priority.

I don't mind up to an hour for character generation. I can't think of any single part of the game that's more important, and we spend hours on other parts. The more options that you have, the more variation you can get for your characters. That not only avoids cookie cutter PCs, but also allows more character concepts to be fully realized.

 

[Scribe]

Out of 12 classes... there are four that are not "against type" for a dwarf. Maybe that's a problem? Maybe they are so tightly and narrowly defined that they end up feeling a bit stifling

I see that as a feature. I LIKE things being so defined.

But, with the Aasimar, there is no mechanical weight to the "type" you described. The archetypes and stereotypes of the Aasimar and how you "play against type" have nothing to do with your stats or your class, they have to do with the story you are trying to tell. An Aasimar can be any class, and still be in "in type" or "against type" it has nothing to do with the mechanics at play.

I understand now, I'd agree there's not a whole lot mechanically, as it's not a PC option that is as tightly defined as Elves, or Dwarves.

It may not be to you, but it certainly is a human trope in many, many stories. Not like, all of humanity, but the enclave of people living in tune with nature bit is pretty common. Also, humans are one of the few "fantasy races" who have entire worlds where they are the only ones that exist, so they end up taking up tropes in those worlds that otherwise might fall to the other races. Meaning that it doesn't cause an eyeblink to slot them into those tropes in other worlds.

In world's that are only or mostly human, sure.

Other species are often included to highlight a different aspect of humanity or to act as a foil. In a D&D/FR like setting with many options, I don't personally see Humans, as the primary representation of 'nature loving eco warrior'.

That would be an elf subspecies, or gnome, most likely to me.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'd personally go with higher ability score generation, drop racial ASIs, and focus on giving them some interesting abilities instead, I feel like a lot of racial abilities are just kinda lame. Probably more racial feats too.

I fully agree with this, although I have to admit I'm puzzled that @Micah Sweet also "liked" this post, since it involves getting rid of racial ASIs. Are we closer on this than I thought?

But, yes, I would love to see more racial abilities that convey the same themes, but with less class-specific synergy, as the ASIs. Which also means you want to minimize synergy with specific attributes. Right? Because if an ability only really works with a high Dexterity score, that ability is going to be great for Rogues and less great for other classes, making that race "better" for rogues, which is the very thing we're trying to avoid. So, for example, for a limited-use ability I would make it proficiency bonus times per long/short rest, not attribute bonus times.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You really can.

How? How can you talk about Evil without in any way shape or form referencing the real evils done to people in the real world?

Because it means your choice of race is diluted from meaningful to cosmetic. If your race doesn't strongly influence your play, I think you might as well just replace it with a few lines of description. And that's fine, if that's the game you want to play- but I want a game where my nonhumans are noticeably different from humans, and each has an archetypical space they fill in the game. You're welcome to step outside of that, but it should be a thing where people notice it and go, "Huh, interesting character choice!" instead of "Oh, that's where your +2 to Dex came from".

Who says it doesn't strongly influence my play? An Earth Genasi rogue, who sits still for hours at a time and speaks to the Earth is just as much an Earth Genasi as one who is a Barbarian who speaks to the Earth and acts like a boulder on the battlefield plowing through enemies. Being an Earth Genasi absolutely is meaningful and influences my play... but that doesn't mean that I can't be a certain class or have certain mechanical stats.

That's not to even address the issue of "where are these dozens of new races from, what have they been doing for all of the world's history, where do they live, no, that place is full of goblins already" with new races. New races are the player-side option least likely to get into my game.

Again, what does this have to do with anything? A) You have not only a planet, but multiple infinite planes of existence, I think you can find room for something. Which ties into B) Races like the genasi come about when races like humans are exposed to elemental energies. There you go, explained. What were they doing for the world's history? Likely existing. Unless you have plotted every square foot and written every month of history for your entire game world, I'm sure you could have a place for them to fit in.

And if you absolutely can't? Then don't have them, but the races you do have can be widened to encompass more concepts. Which is the actual thing we are talking about.

I've played and run a ton of D&D over the decades, and since genasi were introduced in 2e, I have seen one genasi pc ever. Heck, I've never even had anyone else show interest in them.

Meanwhile, I have seen probably literally hundreds of dwarf pcs.

And?

In DnD dwarves are popular and have been for decades. Everyone fall over in shock.

In Fantasy that extends beyond DnD... people born with elemental powers are a concept that dates back to the Bronze Age. Genasi help fulfill that fantasy in DnD. My point was not that Genasi in specific are more popular than Dwarves, but that the fantasy concept of a person born with an intimate connection to the classical elements is a powerful trope in Fantasy, so it is perfectly fine to compare that (as demonstrated through the Genasi, which is a close way to reach that trope) to dwarves as being popular enough to compare their archetypes.

And the only reason I even made that point, is become someone else stepped in to say that comparing Genasi to Dwarves in terms of "has a specific archetype" was inappropriate because dwarves are a more popular concept in all of Fantasy.