D&D General No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures

I don't agree with your premise. I believe most of the ASIs they placed were supposed to match biology. The one example you used is an exception. Dwarves being hardy, elves being dexterous, gnomes being smart, half-orcs being strong, halflings being nimble, dragonborns being strong, half-elves being charismatic, tabaxi being agile, etc. Almost all the races match their natural inclinations. The fact that you pull one example, means little when the majority of examples do relate to biology. (Which, if you saw my other post about language, I was trying to figure out how to correct since they want it to change.) So, ASIs are not random. They were carefully calculated and constructed to create stereotypes, this way players could play something called "against type." Something they mention in the first few pages of the PHB.
OK, let's go through some of the races.

Aarakocra: +2 Dex. Why? In both 2e and 3e, their flight maneuverability was described as "average," and there's nothing in any edition that suggests that they are particularly agile or have good hand-eye coordination.

Aasimar: +2 Cha/+1 Wis because they were specifically written to be paladins and clerics.

Changeling: +2 Cha/+1 any because I guess all changelings are not only liars and fast-talkers, but are innately so.

Dwarf: +2 Con, because the fact that they're poison resistant isn't enough to indicate that they're hardy.

Elf: +2 Dex, because they're built to be rogues and monks apparently. Or, well, more likely because it was decided long ago that bows were Dex weapons.

Firbolg: +2 Wis, because they were written to be druids and rangers (and fighters, I'll admit, which is why they get +1 Strength). So another race that's written with a specific combo in mind, rather than with biology or lore.

Githyanki: +2 Str, because they're slender. I guess they think themselves into being muscle-y, but they only get +1 Int.

Githzerai: +2 Wis/+1 Int, even though psionics has always been primarily Int-based. I guess it's because they're kinda zen even though they're on Limbo? But this suggests that this ASI is learned, not innate. Also, in 2e, they got +1 Int, +1 Dex. I guess they changed a lot of the editions. Ditto with the Wisdom-based, psionic kalashtar.

Gnomes: +2 Int. I don't even get this. I guess at some point they decided it'd be better to not have yet another Small, Dex-based race, because gnomes are literally the only Small race that isn't Dex-based. Weirdly, gnomes were +2 Con in 3e, +1 Int in 2e, and had no bonuses in 1e.

Goblins: +2 Dex, because all Small races except for gnomes are equally nimble, agile-fingered, and have good hand-eye coordination, because we really want to differentiate these races by making them all the same, right? +1 Con because goblins in the MM have Con 10, so that makes sense. :rolleyes:

Grung: 2 Dex again because Small. And +1 Con because they're so fragile that they have to immerse themselves in water 1/day or suffocate. At least VGM grung have an above-average Con to justify them getting a bonus in it, unlike the goblin... except that the VGM grung has a higher Con than it does Dex, so why doesn't the Grung have +2 Con/+1 Dex? You know, besides the fact that all Small races (except for gnomes!) are exactly alike and have +2 Dex.

Half-Elf: Up until tieflings went mainstream, half-elves were one of the two pariah races of D&D (along with the uncharismatic half-orcs), torn between two cultures but truly part of neither, never fully accepted or trusted by either group. Which which why they naturally get +2 Charisma. And, of course, this bonus is despite them recieving no stat bonuses in 1e, 2e, or 3e. Ditto with the +2 Cha tieflings here, who used to be -2 Charisma. Hmm, could it be because warlocks are a Charisma class? I'd bet everything that if they had gone ahead and made warlocks Int-dependent, than Tiefs would have been an Int-based race. (I fully admit that I have no idea what stat warlocks relied on in 4e, but tieflings were Cha-based there, too.)

Kenku: +2 Dex, which makes perfect sense for flightless birds whose main shtick is their mimicry and their ability to memorize new information. This is another case where the ASI was given for class reasons, because kenku are specced as rogues.

Leonin: +2 Con. That rippling mass of pure feline muscle whose terrifying roars echo across the grasslands and whose razor-sharp claws drip with their opponent's blood is Con-based.

And so forth. I'm tired and want to read my Level Up book, which has good heritages and no heritage-based ASIs.

And I have asked for a demonstration of a PC that can't be made using standard array or point buy that doesn't require the mythical 16 or 17. I have yet to see one. I think the reason is, every combination can be made - except for the 16 or 17 at level one. If you have an example, will you please share?
Sure. I want to play a weak orc. With stat array or point buy and a fixed ASI, I can't go below 10 in Strength. I want to play weak, not average. You know, the 98 pound weakling who got sand kicked in his face until he got the Charles Atlas strength-training regimen only to discover that Charles Atlas is actually the the head cultist of an eldritch being from another dimension and now the orc is a scrawny, 8 Strength warlock.

...BRB, gotta make that character.

They are important to some players because it adds to the feel of the game. And what you call "punish" many players see as more fun. Many players feel it helps them hone in on other things or utilize the concept the PHB's writers used - "against type." The designers language and terminology created this. To remove it, might remove someone's feel of their table and game.
So why are these "many" players right but the other players "wrong"?

So, if the argument shifted to: "I want a 16 or 17 at first level, regardless of race; even if that ruins the feel of the game for some." I would gladly accept the way that person wants to play. But, it is never that. It is always: "You don't understand. This will open characterization. It will allow more options. It will make all tables better because we are giving the players choice. Stop punishing players." That is what I don't like. It is an argument that seems disingenuous.
Or maybe you just don't want to believe that we're telling the truth here.

The hill dwarf wizard starts with a +2 in intelligence. As opposed to say, an high elf that can start with a +3. One has advantage against poison, the other sleep. Both have darkvision. One is hardier (+2) and wiser (+1), the other more dexterous (+2). One has tool proficiency and stonecunning, the other keen senses, trance, an extra language and an extra cantrip. One has a bonus to their hit points, the other has nothing equivalent. So let's compare and contrast:
  • You could pose the argument that the +1 is more beneficial than everything else. So nothing else matters. That would definitely be a reason to have floating ASIs, even at the detriment of making races similar, and not just humans with funny hats.
  • You could pose that the extra +1 the elf gets is offset by the +2 to con the dwarf gets. Because that +2 combined with adding an extra hit point at every level would equal out the two races. By level 12, the dwarf will have, on average, 24 extra hit points than the elf. That seems pretty substantial.
If a hill dwarf puts a +2 into Int, then they won't be putting it in Con, which means that their hp will likely be lower anyway, which means that it kind of evens out. And they get those extra hp but they don't get an extra bit of magic--nor will they get advantage against being charmed or immune to being put to sleep, which you seem to have forgotten that elves get. All elves, not just one type of elf, whereas only one type of dwarf gets the extra hp. And while hill dwarfs get some weapon training, they're all Strength-based melee weapons, which means that the dwarf isn't likely to use them as a wizard--whereas an elf wizard can stand at the back of the party shooting either spells or arrows, and with the racial ASI, will be good at it.

So, the hill dwarf wizard, with or without a bonus to Int, is at a slight disadvantage when compared to a high elf wizard, since two of the hill dwarf's primary abilities--the extra hp and the weapons--rely on stats that the hill dwarf will likely not have very high, and one relies on putting themselves directly in harm's way*. Whereas the high elf wizard with a racial ASI is going to be pretty good at their racial weapons and have extra magic. Stonecunning is a ribbon and can be ignored, but being proficient in a tool (of the type hill dwarfs get) is less useful for a wizard who regularly encounters supernatural threats than being resistant to charm and unconsciousness is. And a hill dwarf who doesn't put +2 in Con will equally as effective at maintaining concentration on spells as the high elf is. However, a hill dwarf wizard who is forced into the racial Con bonus will actually have an edge here, and will be better at things like buffs and illusions than an elf wizard is.

If you're trying to claim that a dwarf wizard has an advantage over an elf wizard, you should probably try to be accurate about their abilities. As it is, I'd say they even out.

---
*a mountain dwarf, of course, has armor proficiency, but no extra hp and so will still be very silly to put their d6-hp selves up in melee range.

Zero. And I never said it was needed to define them as a class. Their class does this. The stats define them as a person. There is a difference.
So one of your arguments isn't even based on anything in reality.

As I wrote, both of my warlocks have the same Charisma. Their other stats differ, but more importantly, their personalities differ because both players are good at RP. And only one of their stats actually define them as a person: the feylock with a 6 Wisdom, whose player does a really good (and fun) job of playing that.

Their other stats have almost nothing to do with their personality.

Sorry, do you mean like the ones in the Eberron book? Things like Long Limbed, Powerful Build, Sneaky, Fury of the Small? Sorry, I don't understand the question.
You said racial feats. I assumed you meant the racial feats from XGE: Bountiful Luck, Elven Accuracy, etc.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I too, sometimes question the designers' choices on the fixed ASI for the different races. On the other hand, I am all for fixed ASI. Why?
1) It reinforce classic tropes, but does not prevent people to make characters that will have to do a bit more to be great. The classic development will be skewed in favor of some other advantages.

2) It prevents the simple hunt for the best combo at all times. With floating ASI, make all characters either mountain dwarves, half-orcs or half-elves. Their ASI is that good. It is a simple matter of choosing the right power for the class or classes combo/mix you wish. At least with the fixed ASI, some compromises must be made and this, in turn, can lead to interesting character development.

3) At some pont, when everyone can chose anything in any combo, races stop to matter entirely. They all become simple rubber masks with no tastes nor interesting development avenues. At that point, why have more races? Just play humans with different cultures. There are reasons why D&D passed the test of time and that 5ed went full retro. That now, some people are sniffling at these reasons just bugs me to no end.

4) Fixed ASi not only reinforced tropes but it also meet new players expectations of what "X" race should be by the assumed lore in the various novels that they could have read or movies they have seen. D&D is 1st in the hobby because it does just that. Easy to understand and relate to.

Just my two cents, but I have introduced hundreds in the hobby over the years, the tropes are useful. And when a player or a group of players wish to go further, nothing in the current rules prevents them from doing so. So why change something that is working perfectly as intended? If it ain't broken, do not fix it. 4ed tried it. We all know how it ended up.

PS:" I really liked 4ed. But I am one of the rare ones".
 

Sure. I want to play a weak orc. With stat array or point buy and a fixed ASI, I can't go below 10 in Strength. I want to play weak, not average. You know, the 98 pound weakling who got sand kicked in his face until he got the Charles Atlas strength-training regimen only to discover that Charles Atlas is actually the the head cultist of an eldritch being from another dimension and now the orc is a scrawny, 8 Strength warlock.

...BRB, gotta make that character.
I've made a characetr like this before, who I would readily play if ever given the chance. A Half-Orc Battle Smith Artificer that had a genetic disorder that made them so weak that they chose to replace their fleshy body parts with metal, eventually turning into a Warforged. It was a cool character, and I made use of TCoe's Customize your Origin ruleset to make this possible.

Without that ruleset, the character would be very different and not as fun to play.

 


OK, let's go through some of the races.

Aarakocra: +2 Dex. Why? In both 2e and 3e, their flight maneuverability was described as "average," and there's nothing in any edition that suggests that they are particularly agile or have good hand-eye coordination.

Aasimar: +2 Cha/+1 Wis because they were specifically written to be paladins and clerics.

Changeling: +2 Cha/+1 any because I guess all changelings are not only liars and fast-talkers, but are innately so.

Dwarf: +2 Con, because the fact that they're poison resistant isn't enough to indicate that they're hardy.

Elf: +2 Dex, because they're built to be rogues and monks apparently. Or, well, more likely because it was decided long ago that bows were Dex weapons.

Firbolg: +2 Wis, because they were written to be druids and rangers (and fighters, I'll admit, which is why they get +1 Strength). So another race that's written with a specific combo in mind, rather than with biology or lore.

Githyanki: +2 Str, because they're slender. I guess they think themselves into being muscle-y, but they only get +1 Int.

Githzerai: +2 Wis/+1 Int, even though psionics has always been primarily Int-based. I guess it's because they're kinda zen even though they're on Limbo? But this suggests that this ASI is learned, not innate. Also, in 2e, they got +1 Int, +1 Dex. I guess they changed a lot of the editions. Ditto with the Wisdom-based, psionic kalashtar.

Gnomes: +2 Int. I don't even get this. I guess at some point they decided it'd be better to not have yet another Small, Dex-based race, because gnomes are literally the only Small race that isn't Dex-based. Weirdly, gnomes were +2 Con in 3e, +1 Int in 2e, and had no bonuses in 1e.

Goblins: +2 Dex, because all Small races except for gnomes are equally nimble, agile-fingered, and have good hand-eye coordination, because we really want to differentiate these races by making them all the same, right? +1 Con because goblins in the MM have Con 10, so that makes sense. :rolleyes:

Grung: 2 Dex again because Small. And +1 Con because they're so fragile that they have to immerse themselves in water 1/day or suffocate. At least VGM grung have an above-average Con to justify them getting a bonus in it, unlike the goblin... except that the VGM grung has a higher Con than it does Dex, so why doesn't the Grung have +2 Con/+1 Dex? You know, besides the fact that all Small races (except for gnomes!) are exactly alike and have +2 Dex.

Half-Elf: Up until tieflings went mainstream, half-elves were one of the two pariah races of D&D (along with the uncharismatic half-orcs), torn between two cultures but truly part of neither, never fully accepted or trusted by either group. Which which why they naturally get +2 Charisma. And, of course, this bonus is despite them recieving no stat bonuses in 1e, 2e, or 3e. Ditto with the +2 Cha tieflings here, who used to be -2 Charisma. Hmm, could it be because warlocks are a Charisma class? I'd bet everything that if they had gone ahead and made warlocks Int-dependent, than Tiefs would have been an Int-based race. (I fully admit that I have no idea what stat warlocks relied on in 4e, but tieflings were Cha-based there, too.)

Kenku: +2 Dex, which makes perfect sense for flightless birds whose main shtick is their mimicry and their ability to memorize new information. This is another case where the ASI was given for class reasons, because kenku are specced as rogues.

Leonin: +2 Con. That rippling mass of pure feline muscle whose terrifying roars echo across the grasslands and whose razor-sharp claws drip with their opponent's blood is Con-based.

And so forth. I'm tired and want to read my Level Up book, which has good heritages and no heritage-based ASIs.
I appreciate your viewpoint. But just claiming they were placed there for race/class combos instead of natural or inherent tendencies, doesn't make it so. Look at the language the PHB uses. It is clear it was geared towards biology. For example, Aasimar has a charisma bonus - because we picture angels charismatic. Their description: hair that shines like polished metal, eyes sparkling like gems, and the fact that they have golden halos should add something to charisma. By the way, these are things they are born with.
Now could the designers have been thinking about how aasimars will make awesome clerics and paladins? Absolutely. But to dismiss the obvious seems purposeful.
Sure. I want to play a weak orc. With stat array or point buy and a fixed ASI, I can't go below 10 in Strength. I want to play weak, not average. You know, the 98 pound weakling who got sand kicked in his face until he got the Charles Atlas strength-training regimen only to discover that Charles Atlas is actually the the head cultist of an eldritch being from another dimension and now the orc is a scrawny, 8 Strength warlock.
Well first, let me commend you on your description, because I actually laughed out loud. It was very good. And I am a bit jealous I have never thought of it. Thank you for making me laugh. As far as building the character, with standard array or point buy, you are correct. He would have a 10 strength. That said, I doubt most DMs would have stopped you from not placing the +2 in strength and tossing it aside. But the point is, you can't make the character with point buy or standard array.
On a side note, @AcererakTriple6 , that is a great character. Awesome backstory! I like all facets of that character, and I bet that it is very fun to play.
So why are these "many" players right but the other players "wrong"?
This is what I said:
"They are important to some players because it adds to the feel of the game. And what you call "punish" many players see as more fun. Many players feel it helps them hone in on other things or utilize the concept the PHB's writers used - "against type." The designers language and terminology created this. To remove it, might remove someone's feel of their table and game."
In there, I never said one side was right or wrong. I said that to change the ASI, you will change the feel of the game for many, as some players see it as a challenge or more fun.
If a hill dwarf puts a +2 into Int, then they won't be putting it in Con, which means that their hp will likely be lower anyway, which means that it kind of evens out. And they get those extra hp but they don't get an extra bit of magic--nor will they get advantage against being charmed or immune to being put to sleep, which you seem to have forgotten that elves get. All elves, not just one type of elf, whereas only one type of dwarf gets the extra hp. And while hill dwarfs get some weapon training, they're all Strength-based melee weapons, which means that the dwarf isn't likely to use them as a wizard--whereas an elf wizard can stand at the back of the party shooting either spells or arrows, and with the racial ASI, will be good at it.

So, the hill dwarf wizard, with or without a bonus to Int, is at a slight disadvantage when compared to a high elf wizard, since two of the hill dwarf's primary abilities--the extra hp and the weapons--rely on stats that the hill dwarf will likely not have very high, and one relies on putting themselves directly in harm's way*. Whereas the high elf wizard with a racial ASI is going to be pretty good at their racial weapons and have extra magic. Stonecunning is a ribbon and can be ignored, but being proficient in a tool (of the type hill dwarfs get) is less useful for a wizard who regularly encounters supernatural threats than being resistant to charm and unconsciousness is. And a hill dwarf who doesn't put +2 in Con will equally as effective at maintaining concentration on spells as the high elf is. However, a hill dwarf wizard who is forced into the racial Con bonus will actually have an edge here, and will be better at things like buffs and illusions than an elf wizard is.

If you're trying to claim that a dwarf wizard has an advantage over an elf wizard, you should probably try to be accurate about their abilities. As it is, I'd say they even out.
?
I specifically said the high elf would make the better wizard. At low levels, they would be better, at higher levels a little better or no better. In a standard array spread you would have this:
Race Strength Dex Con Int Wis Cha
Dwarf 8 12 16 15 14 10
Elf 8 16 12 16 13 10
Both of these builds maximizes on their strengths, and does exactly what the PHB tells a player to do, make intelligence as high as you can get it, and then focus on dex or con. In this build, both groups have an overall +8. The elf gets that mythical +3 to int, the dwarf does not. But the dwarf can choose to focus on the con, which gives him that mythical +3. That adds up to a lot of hit points, 36 to be exact, by level 12 (with hill dwarf).
In then end, I fail to see how the dwarf build is not functional. I get that the elf is better overall. But, the only thing it does to the dwarf is make it "against type." It is still a good wizard, and my guess is anyone who has played one with ASIs, has still had fun.
So one of your arguments isn't even based on anything in reality.

As I wrote, both of my warlocks have the same Charisma. Their other stats differ, but more importantly, their personalities differ because both players are good at RP. And only one of their stats actually define them as a person: the feylock with a 6 Wisdom, whose player does a really good (and fun) job of playing that.

Their other stats have almost nothing to do with their personality.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear in my earlier post. Those weren't my arguments. They were arguments used as defaults to encourage floating ASIs. Hence, why the word "you" (not you personally) is used. And it sounds like your table is excellent. Full of good players. But how is their charisma or strength or intelligence not define them as a person (their characters, that is)? I don't know how someone plays a 16 intelligence character without at least trying to seem smart, or an 18 charisma character without putting on some swagger. (If the table only roleplays in second person, I get it. But first person, I don't?)
You said racial feats. I assumed you meant the racial feats from XGE: Bountiful Luck, Elven Accuracy, etc.
Sorry for the confusion.

In the end, my claim is that ASIs matter to many, especially concerning the feel of the game. My other claim is, players don't want them because they want a character that has the +3, not +2. The two sides clash. In my humble opinion, I think the side that wanted to get rid of ASIs sees that it removes one characteristic that separates the races from one another, but they feel it doesn't hurt the feel of their game. In fact, they think it will help the feel of their game. The other side is the exact opposite. It hurts the feel of their game by making the playable races more alike.
 

Sure. I want to play a weak orc. With stat array or point buy and a fixed ASI, I can't go below 10 in Strength. I want to play weak, not average. You know, the 98 pound weakling who got sand kicked in his face until he got the Charles Atlas strength-training regimen only to discover that Charles Atlas is actually the the head cultist of an eldritch being from another dimension and now the orc is a scrawny, 8 Strength warlock.
Str 10 is weak for an Orc, the same as Str 8 is weak for a human. That you can't go below that is a feature of the standard array and not ASI.
 

Str 10 is weak for an Orc, the same as Str 8 is weak for a human. That you can't go below that is a feature of the standard array and not ASI.
No, it's a feature of ASI. Because 8 is as low as you can go, but the orcs' racial ASI bumps that up to 10.
 


I've made a characetr like this before, who I would readily play if ever given the chance. A Half-Orc Battle Smith Artificer that had a genetic disorder that made them so weak that they chose to replace their fleshy body parts with metal, eventually turning into a Warforged. It was a cool character, and I made use of TCoe's Customize your Origin ruleset to make this possible.

Without that ruleset, the character would be very different and not as fun to play.

That actually sounds amazing. I love it. Great mini as well!
 

Remove ads

Top