Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 8448494" data-attributes="member: 6915329">If you want races to be different, then you, the DM (with the help of the players) need to come up with ways they are different. As I said before, come up with lists of cultural and biological quirks. Or have mechanical traits. Because the differences between a githyanki, an orc, a centaur, and a minotaur are all because of those quirks and traits, not the ASIs.In part, of course it is. But first off, this is no different than playing a +2 Strength race as a martial and a +2 mental stat race as a spellcaster who relies on that stat. And it's no different from putting your highest score in your prime stat anyway.And secondly, it's not just to be stronger. It is to be able to move stats where you want. I legitimately play race/class combos across type and I don't want some of them to have a high stat of a particular type. I have a firbolg (+2 Wis, +1 Str) genielock. I didn't want them to be that strong. Going by the background I had written for them (they had been a survivor of a werewolf attack), it would have made more sense for them to have +1 Con. My kalashtar fighter (+2 Wis, +1 Cha) is strong and pretty smart, but I never saw her as being particularly charismatic. Only my Levestus tiefling (+2 Cha, +1 Con) rogue benefits from her actual ASIs--but I picked tiefling because I like them, and the subrace because I wanted her to have a cold theme, not because of the +2 Cha which helps her as  a swashbuckler.By forcing me to have fixed ASIs, I couldn't fully create two of my three current characters the way I envisioned them.</blockquote>

Verification