D&D (2024) Idea for starting ASIs, three way split.

[DEFCON 1]

I don't think that's how it usually works in practice though.

I don't believe practice is the issue.

The issue (from what we've seen in many threads in the past) is that many people believe that races should have set ability modifier bonuses as that is the way of defining races. Goliaths are bigger and stronger than other races, so they need to have that +2 STR to denote that (for example). But if the game removes these modifiers (or allows a player to put their +2/+1 into any stat they want), then they are removing an important facet of racial distinction.

But my argument is that Player Characters are not in any way representative of the average people of any races, specifically because they can be completely opposite of what the average member would be. You're right in that we might not (or rarely) see a player make a Goliath PC with a STR 12 or a Halfling PC of STR 15... but that doesn't change the fact that we can see them as per the rules. We can have weak Goliaths relative to other races in a party... so that so-called "required" +2 STR needed in the racial write-up (that some people suggest needs to be there) to be emblematic of the strength and size of Goliaths relative to other races is completely lost. The game didn't need to give the Goliath a +2 STR to represent the race's size and strength, because the player themself completely negated it when they decided to play a Goliath with a strength of 12.

If we players can negate the "average" person from a specific race by how we place our scores... why are we forcing the book's racial write-ups to attempt to do it? And thus why I think this is why they are removing the +2/+1 ASI from races and putting them over into Backgrounds.

 

[Scribe]

Goliaths are bigger and stronger than other races, so they need to have that +2 STR to denote that (for example). But if the game removes these modifiers (or allows a player to put their +2/+1 into any stat they want), then they are removing an important facet of racial distinction.

Right, and the reason some of us went to a compromise 3 way distribution, was to retain at least a hint of that, while letting people still achieve the stat spread they feel they need.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't believe practice is the issue.

The issue (from what we've seen in many threads in the past) is that many people believe that races should have set ability modifier bonuses as that is the way of defining races. Goliaths are bigger and stronger than other races, so they need to have that +2 STR to denote that (for example). But if the game removes these modifiers (or allows a player to put their +2/+1 into any stat they want), then they are removing an important facet of racial distinction.

But my argument is that Player Characters are not in any way representative of the average people of any races, specifically because they can be completely opposite of what the average member would be. You're right in that we might not (or rarely) see a player make a Goliath PC with a STR 12 or a Halfling PC of STR 15... but that doesn't change the fact that we can see them as per the rules. We can have weak Goliaths relative to other races in a party... so that so-called "required" +2 STR needed in the racial write-up (that some people suggest needs to be there) to be emblematic of the strength and size of Goliaths relative to other races is completely lost. The game didn't need to give the Goliath a +2 STR to represent the race's size and strength, because the player themself completely negated it when they decided to play a Goliath with a strength of 12.

If we players can negate the "average" person from a specific race by how we place our scores... why are we forcing the book's racial write-ups to attempt to do it? And thus why I think this is why they are removing the +2/+1 ASI from races and putting them over into Backgrounds.

I don't think assigning stat points eliminates the strengths fixed ASIs are supposed to represent. Weakest goliath is still stronger than a weakest human, in fact as strong as an average human. And strongest (starting) goliath is stronger than strongest (starting) PCs of most other species. Granted, it is weird that the ultimate cap is same for all and logically the ASIs should affect that.

 

[Scribe]

Granted, it is weird that the ultimate cap is same for all and logically the ASIs should affect that.

Solved with negative modifiers, and different hard caps...

 

[DEFCON 1]

Right, and the reason some of us went to a compromise 3 way distribution, was to retain at least a hint of that, while letting people still achieve the stat spread they feel they need.

I'm all for people house ruling whatever they want to get the type of game they want, so I think that's great.

Truth be told, if this kind of thing really mattered to me, I probably would actually go completely all-in with it. I'd give my races minimums and maximums to denote the relative strengths and weaknesses of each race to each other. So Halflings could only have maybe a maximum STR of 8, while Goliaths would have a minimum STR of 14 (so there was always a true distinction between the two in terms of STR.) Now granted, yes, this would ostensibly cut down on the number of "workable" options for players in terms of Classes for each Race... like we wouldn't see anyone play Halfling STR fighters, or anyone play Dwarf Monks if their maximum DEX was like 12. But to my mind... * if * I wanted to really distinguish the races physical and mental differences, I don't think letting players play any combination of race and class would be the way to go. The party composition in terms of physical and mental abilities should be representative of the races themselves. Heck... in many ways, I'd probably end up just going the AD&D route and deciding to only allow certain races to play certain classes to make the differences even more evident and stark. But that's just me.

 

[Smackpixi]

Any race, class, or background can get to 20 in any stat they want to regardless of where these 3 points go. Just have players stick them wherever they want to, it doesn’t matter in the long run.

Now capping some races in certain stats below 20 is really what would make “sense” in the Halfling vs Goliath discussion, but I’m pretty sure that’s not a racial essentialism argument you’re going to enjoy making today. Stick with phrenology, it’s an easier sell.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Any race, class, or background can get to 20 in any stat they want to regardless of where these 3 points go. Just have players stick them wherever they want to, it doesn’t matter in the long run.

Now capping some races in certain stats below 20 is really what would make “sense” in the Halfling vs Goliath discussion, but I’m pretty sure that’s not a racial essentialism argument you’re going to enjoy making today. Stick with phrenology, it’s an easier sell.

I certainly agree that WotC would never want to do something like this. But if an individual DM wanted to really play the tropes of the races (or the tropes of AD&D), putting in ability minimums, maximums and class restrictions would be the best way to accomplish it.

 

[delericho]

+1 anywhere just kicks the decision straight to class. Makes the characters cookie cutter. Unless you're deliberately playing against type, you're going to boost the prime requisites that give you the biggest bonus.

In my experience, tying the ASIs to race (or background) still kicks the decision to class anyway. It's extremely common for players to come in having decided to play a particular class, and then pick the elf subrace that gives them the best ASIs for that class.

Split the 3 points you get for ASI during creation between race, background/origin, and class. You keep the +1 for being a particular race...

It's not a bad idea, but I think the days of ASIs being attached to race are now history, never to be seen again. They may fix them to Background with the new edition, but even then I expect them to be floating - either officially or in practice.

Would work, except when you also allow for rolling stats.

What you can do here is give the player some extra dice to add to their pools - for each +1 they get one extra dice to add, and can add one or two dice to any given pool.

So a character who gets the normal +2/+1 could roll 6d6-keep-3 once, 5d6-keep-3 once, and 4d6=-keep-3 for the rest; or could roll 5d6-keep-3 three times and 4d6-keep-3 three times.

That's not perfectly equivalent to allowing them to add stats, but it's actually not to far off.

 

[CubicsRube]

Any race, class, or background can get to 20 in any stat they want to regardless of where these 3 points go. Just have players stick them wherever they want to, it doesn’t matter in the long run.

Now capping some races in certain stats below 20 is really what would make “sense” in the Halfling vs Goliath discussion, but I’m pretty sure that’s not a racial essentialism argument you’re going to enjoy making today. Stick with phrenology, it’s an easier sell.

Capping is a much better idea but still a too sensitive topic, especially when it comes to intelligence. An Orc might have an INT cap of 18 while a gnome mighy have a cap of 20 or 22. The Orc at 18 would still be far smarter than almost all the population, but it's still smacks of racism.

I sometimes wonder if racial ASIs would be better applied to purely physical stats if we needed to keep them.

I for one however welcome our Background ASI overlords!

 

[Horwath]

just modify point buy:

32pts;

8: 0pts
9: 1pt
10: 2pts
11: 3pts
12: 4pts
13: 5pts
14: 6pts
15: 8pts
16: 10pts

or default array of 16,16,14,12,10,8