D&D 5E Assaying rules for non-racial ASIs

[FrogReaver]

This is what I found while attempting to homebrew a bunch of stuff.

If you're trying to stat up a large number of subraces, eventually a lot of it feels completely arbitrary when you're trying to not repeat similar ASI combos. When you completely eliminate ASIs though, suddenly you're only designing for racial flavor instead of worrying about math widgets. Dropping arbitrary numbers out of the statblock forces you to focus on pure narrative/flavor elements because that's the only vector that you have to approach the design with.

This is an argument I could get behind for ditching racial ASIs! Well done!

 

[CreamCloud0]

Personally i don't see any issue with racial ASI's and what they're meant to represent which is the baseline strengths of any given race/species/lineage in comparison to any other race, the cultural associations and/or sterotypes used are an entirely separate issue.

People may ask is it racist that halflings have a +2 to DEX and that a goliath has STR +2 but I'll respond is it racist to point out that raccoons are more dexterous than a bear and not as strong as one? no, because these are entirely different creatures with different biological specialisations even if they both have fur, walk on four paws and have a tail, It's not meant to be commentary on anything about their worth as a species, they are optimised for different things, and if built at character creation with the same stat allocation a halfling at least can become as strong as the goliath with an extra ASI spent in STR during level ups, It's fair to say a halfling fighter should be stronger than a goliath wizard but a goliath wizard should still be stronger than a halfling one even if they both completely dumped STR because that is what the goliath species is inherently predisposed to be good at.

On the other hand i'd appreciate if there were more manifestations of racial traits in other ways beyond ASI's, personally i'd like more proficiencies handed out as part of a race, maybe half-proficiency bonus or naturally having advantage at certain skills (i don't know what would be best to ballance) in a way that isn't mutually exclusive with standard bonuses (if you manage to get stealth proficiency from your class or background your stealth advantages from being a halfling doesn't get nullified, it stacks) so it doesn't just come down to pure stat bonuses that get absorbed into the larger numbers the moment character creation is over.

And on splitting up ASI to +1/+1/+1 i'd say if two of those +1 are staying in their original stats then they're serving their purpose enough to allow for the third to be given a little flexibility.

Having the wrong racial ASI does not ever make a class unplayable by a certain race, it merely means they're slightly less efficient at it than one that does have them in the 'right' places, but more rounded out overall.

[edited for minor wording tweaks]

 

[Blue]

13th Age had an interesting way to handle character creation ASIs. It's a d20 tat came out before 5e, created by lead designers of D&D 3.0 and 4e.

Each race has a choice of +2 to one of two ability scores. Thigns tthe race was particularly good at. And then each class gave a choice of +2 to two ability scores, important ones for the class. But you couldn't pick the same one you had picked for race.

So you always had a prime ability score picked, and something else. But it was flavored by both race and class, without either one saying "all X are Y".

 

[ART!]

I really like and admire your design goals here, @clearstream , and you seem to be pulling it off nicely. Kudos! If I were to dive into a project like this, I'd look at what you've done/are doing for pointers.

 

[ART!]

In all honesty, I'd like 90% of the instances of darkvision dropped, and tremorsense, infravision, blindsight, et al, inserted for variety.

Wider, lower, or higher hearing ranges, and improved sense of smell, are other possibilities.

 

[Lyxen]

Runequest has the best way of handling racial ASIs, since they can vary immensely from race to race, from 2d4+3 on some stats of some creatures to 3d6+6. And this is how it should be, it's a fantasy world, there is no reason for stats to be almost the same between creatures of extremely varied origins. Stats of PCs will be extremely varied as well, so exactly where is the problem ?

The thing is that, as noted by others, a +1 or +2 does not make a huge difference anyway, so spreading them around does not even counter racism in any way since not only does it affect only PCs whereas racial stats are still present in the MM, it just helps powergamers ensure that their ASIs will be aligned with their class.

 

[clearstream]

The thing is that, as noted by others, a +1 or +2 does not make a huge difference anyway, so spreading them around does not even counter racism in any way since not only does it affect only PCs whereas racial stats are still present in the MM, it just helps powergamers ensure that their ASIs will be aligned with their class.

For the sake of argument, suppose that were true. Then racial ASIs retain their problematic semantic content, without any mechanical purpose. They're even less justified than if they mechanically mattered.

 

[Lyxen]

For the sake of argument, suppose that were true. Then racial ASIs retain their problematic semantic content, without any mechanical purpose. They're even less justified than if they mechanically mattered.

And what is that « problematic semantic content » ? The fact that all fantasy species in an infinite multiverse are not equal in all stats ? Once more, pretending that they should all be equal is ridiculous, and changing the racial ASIs has not changed it anyway, since an average ogre is still way stronger than an average goblin.

And in any case, why that focus on abilities, some races/species are way stronger than others if you consider powers ?

Considering that there are other TTRPGs with way stronger difference between stats and powers and which are not under attack at all, honestly, the fight on D&D is just due to its visibility and the only thing I can say to WotC is kudos for managing that very unjustified and unfair situation with so far minimal damage to the game.

 

[clearstream]

And what is that « problematic semantic content » ? The fact that all fantasy species in an infinite multiverse are not equal in all stats ? Once more, pretending that they should all be equal is ridiculous, and changing the racial ASIs has not changed it anyway, since an average ogre is still way stronger than an average goblin.

If I don't notice any problem with the semantic content, then I am unlikely to agree that arguments motivated by such problems are justified. But my view in that case wouldn't be about mechanical efficacy, it would be about my fundamental disagreement that there is any problem with the semantic content to begin with. That is what I am pointing out. Mechanical efficacy isn't really at issue.

Considering that there are other TTRPGs with way stronger difference between stats and powers and which are not under attack at all, honestly, the fight on D&D is just due to its visibility and the only thing I can say to WotC is kudos for managing that very unjustified and unfair situation with so far minimal damage to the game.

Do you mean that unless we can solve a problem everywhere it occurs, we should not try to solve that problem anywhere? Essentially, a call to inaction? I favour doing what we can, where we can. That creates a context in which others may feel encouraged to act. One important fact about WotC's changes is that they are making those changes to the world's most ubiquitous - and perhaps most influential - TTRPG.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If I don't notice any problem with the semantic content, then I am unlikely to agree that arguments motivated by such problems are justified. But my view in that case wouldn't be about mechanical efficacy, it would be about my fundamental disagreement that there is any problem with the semantic content to begin with. That is what I am pointing out. Mechanical efficacy isn't really at issue.

Yes. Some people simply do not agree that species of fictional creatures having differing capabilities compared to each other is any sort of a problem. But if it is a problem, it indeed is so regardless of how it is mechanically represented, and even if it is just fluff. And the logical conclusion is that sapient fantasy creatures cannot exist as anything beyond aesthetics. A goblin has the exact same capabilities than a giant.

Do you mean that unless we can solve a problem everywhere it occurs, we should not try to solve that problem anywhere? Essentially, a call to inaction? I favour doing what we can, where we can. That creates a context in which others may feel encouraged to act. One important fact about WotC's changes is that they are making those changes to the world's most ubiquitous - and perhaps most influential - TTRPG.

But in theory, you think it would be desirable if all fictional sapient creatures in all games and all media were depicted to have identical capabilities?