D&D 5E Class-based Ability Score Increases (revised proposal)

[loverdrive]

Aside from that point - which probably we can agree on (I'm agreeing with you, broadly) - what do you think on the subject of Mountain Dwarfs, Half-Elves and especially Humans? Do they need compensation for the lost half to one-and-a-half ASIs?

I guess there's nothing wrong with retaining some racial ability bonuses, like mountain dwarfs still get +1 STR, but I feel like half-elves are still cool with all their skill proficiencies and non-variant humans are just beyond saving.

My solution with the dwarfs specifically would be to just merge them together.

 

[DND_Reborn]

An issue with that method is that it fails to work for groups that assign-as-rolled, and more crucially it doesn't work for points-buy or standard array. It continues to suffer exactly the problem I described.

Ah, the assign-as-rolled group would have to use a different method than the 4d6-L roll 7, keep 6. Is there another method out there? Sure, of course there is for such a group. Do I have time to find yet another method for such obscure (IME) groups? Not at the moment.

Well, you did propose an alternative that does not work. At least, not under the test of - should work for groups that use random as well as for groups that use points-buy or arrays.

No, I didn't. Every alternative I've described work to replace systems dependent on ASI bumps. I've accounted for roll and arrange to taste (the standard method in 5E), the standard array (the second method), and point-buy (the alternative method). Did I outline what those alternatives are? No, they have existed for a while now and have been covered in other threads. You don't seem to have any interest in them, so there is no point in my repeating them for you here or encouraging you to seek them out youself.

The only group I didn't state there are already alternatives for is the assign-as-rolled (which you pointed out), because I never considered them as no one IME does that anymore. YMMV of course.

At any rate, I've told you twice already that your proposal as outlined in the OP is fine for someone who wants such a system, to which I don't and see no need. You seem hellbent on arguing points that have nothing to do with the OP to keep me engaged in this thread. I won't work further. I am about to play and have been uses for my time. As I've already said:

Good luck with it.

 

[clearstream]

No, I didn't. Every alternative I've described work to replace systems dependent on ASI bumps. I've accounted for roll and arrange to taste (the standard method in 5E), the standard array (the second method), and point-buy (the alternative method). Did I outline what those alternatives are? No, they have existed for a while now and have been covered in other threads. You don't seem to have any interest in them, so there is no point in my repeating them for you here or encouraging you to seek them out youself.

The only group I didn't state there are already alternatives for is the assign-as-rolled (which you pointed out), because I never considered them as no one IME does that anymore. YMMV of course.

That makes more of assign-as-rolled than my post intended, which I aimed to signal with the word "crucially" and what followed. 4d6-L roll 7 does not work with assign-as-rolled but also does not work with points-buy or standard array. For me that discussion leads quite strongly to a conclusion that it's better - for a system serving many tables - to go with an alternative that grants some +N bumps.

You should go and enjoy your game!

 

[clearstream]

I guess there's nothing wrong with retaining some racial ability bonuses, like mountain dwarfs still get +1 STR, but I feel like half-elves are still cool with all their skill proficiencies and non-variant humans are just beyond saving.

My solution with the dwarfs specifically would be to just merge them together.

A glitch I foresee with giving them +1 STR is if they can then add a further +2 through whatever array of stat bumps is adopted. So far, granting +3 has been avoided (I think... there could be a race out there in some splat book that does it!)

And OTOH dwarfs of any kind are hardly the weakest race! It could feels unjustified to protect their 4 points over say helping out dragonborn (perhaps an argument for doing neither).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I wouldn’t get rid of the race ASIs. It’s much easier to adjust the game for higher PC stats than for lower, IME.

 

[Horwath]

I guess there's nothing wrong with retaining some racial ability bonuses, like mountain dwarfs still get +1 STR, but I feel like half-elves are still cool with all their skill proficiencies and non-variant humans are just beyond saving.

My solution with the dwarfs specifically would be to just merge them together.

That is my idea for dwarves after this whole floating racial ability bonuses:

Darkvision,
speed 25ft
advantage and resistance vs. poisons.
All dwarves get their 4 racial weapons or tools,
+1 HP per level
+1 armor category for starting class or +1 class skill. Armor categories go from; none->light->medium->heavy

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I have a similar system. It grants a player a +1 bonus to an ability score tied to their race/subrace, +1 to an ability score tied to their background, and a +1 to an ability score based on their class. They can't get a +3 in any single ability score, so they are forced to take at least a +1 to a different ability score.

I talked about this system a bit in this post.

 

[clearstream]

I have a similar system. It grants a player a +1 bonus to an ability score tied to their race/subrace, +1 to an ability score tied to their background, and a +1 to an ability score based on their class. They can't get a +3 in any single ability score, so they are forced to take at least a +1 to a different ability score.

I talked about this system a bit in this post.

I read that thread and found it interesting. For me, what the mechanic needs to accomplish is not just sliding ability modifiers to the right, but enhancing the texture of campaign worlds. So something like what you suggest, or what I put in my OP, is where I would like to land.

With that noted, my criticism of your method is only that it seems to retain some funneling of players who are concerned to be as mechanically effective as they can be in their chosen class. That is why I wanted to move away from race... and for similar reasons, background.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I read that thread and found it interesting. For me, what the mechanic needs to accomplish is not just sliding ability modifiers to the right, but enhancing the texture of campaign worlds. So something like what you suggest, or what I put in my OP, is where I would like to land.

I agree, which is exactly why I made my version so open. IMO, your character creation decisions should matter for how good you are at your current job (i.e. your class).

With that noted, my criticism of your method is only that it seems to retain some funneling of players who are concerned to be as mechanically effective as they can be in their chosen class. That is why I wanted to move away from race... and for similar reasons, background.

I can see how you feel that way, but my goal for this was to allow anyone who wanted to be good at their class's focus be as good as any other race, while still making your racial choice matter a bit for ASIs. A gnome will be a bit better at being an Artificer than a Shifter would be, unless they give their background in order to do so.

 

[CubicsRube]

My preference would be to implement something like your edited OP rather than racial ASIs.