Racial ASI removal: ASI to Class and Background

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

My point is that, presumably, the motivation to remove ability score increases from races is so that you're not always picking races purely for their synergy with the class you're going to play. That being the case, wouldn't you also not want people to choose a specific background purely for class-synergy reasons?

Oh, I know. Synergy is always an issue, especially with power-gamers. But, people do tend to drift to their strengths. True some people like to challenge themselves by drifting towards their weakness in order to improve themselves but IME this is much less common.

I've had a couple games where I insisted players roll up their ability scores in order and had to roll so it was random. I then let them exchange only one point from each ability score to another (three swaps max, but you could put up to three in one, e.g. take one point from Str, Dex, and Con, for +3 Int). They also rolled randomly for race as well, modifying scores for race. The only choice was in their class.

The idea was when you are born you have no control over what your strengths and weaknesses will be (i.e. ability scores) or to whom you are born (race). The ability score single point swaps were because, as you are growing up and even when you are older, you can influence those strengths and weaknesses to a point. Finally, you can choose your profession so class was the choice.

Anyway, I digress. I don't think the OP was to remove picking races because of synergy, but rather to move some of it to class-based and background-based ASIs due to choosing your class and background will likely make your primary abilities better.

Regardless, if you have a choice of race, background, or class, any linked ASI will be chosen more often to play to the strengths you want for your character. So, to your point, if that was their goal, it would only be shifting the problem as you suggest, not removing it.

 

[akr71]

As others have said, tying an ASI to background may have players choose backgrounds as an optimization choice rather than flavour. Giving an ASI to class just boosts a character's prime stat further.

I'm going to suggest something a little radical. No racial, background or class ASI's. What you rolled is what you play - initially anyway. I'm suggesting giving all classes a +1 ASI on reaching level 2 and a +2 ASI upon reaching level 3. You end up with the same total bonus in the end and it gives the player a little more customization over their character and a little bit more time to figure out what direction they want to take their character before choosing an archtype.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

As others have said, tying an ASI to background may have players choose backgrounds as an optimization choice rather than flavour. Giving an ASI to class just boosts a character's prime stat further.

I'm going to suggest something a little radical. No racial, background or class ASI's. What you rolled is what you play - initially anyway. I'm suggesting giving all classes a +1 ASI on reaching level 2 and a +2 ASI upon reaching level 3. You end up with the same total bonus in the end and it gives the player a little more customization over their character and a little bit more time to figure out what direction they want to take their character before choosing an archtype.

That isn't a bad suggestion, either. But, what about multiclassing? Are you suggesting it is tied to the class, class-level, or character-level?

It makes sense tying it to class (e.g. at Level 2 Fighter you get +1 Str, Dex, or Con). And if it is tied to character-level, then it is no different really from just awarding a +2 ASI and +1 ASI during creation IMO.

If you follow the "apprenticeship" stage concept (levels 1 and 2), then those improvements reflect those gained through finishing that stage.

 

[akr71]

That isn't a bad suggestion, either. But, what about multiclassing? Are you suggesting it is tied to the class, class-level, or character-level?

It makes sense tying it to class (e.g. at Level 2 Fighter you get +1 Str, Dex, or Con). And if it is tied to character-level, then it is no different really from just awarding a +2 ASI and +1 ASI during creation IMO.

If you follow the "apprenticeship" stage concept (levels 1 and 2), then those improvements reflect those gained through finishing that stage.

Hmm, I hadn't thought that far ahead - I came up with the idea as I was reading this thread. I guess initially had thought character level for the reason you pointed out. By level 3 you end up right where you would had you gone with RAW character creation.

However, I also neglected to mention that these 'level-up' ASI's would be entirely at the player's discretion. If you are playing a Fighter and realize that maybe you want to play an E.K. you can boost Int with both of those (or one) to make up for a deficiency at character creation.

If it were tied to class level, and you multiclassed just to get the ASI... well that seems silly to me, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

As others have said, tying an ASI to background may have players choose backgrounds as an optimization choice rather than flavour. Giving an ASI to class just boosts a character's prime stat further.

I'm going to suggest something a little radical. No racial, background or class ASI's. What you rolled is what you play - initially anyway. I'm suggesting giving all classes a +1 ASI on reaching level 2 and a +2 ASI upon reaching level 3. You end up with the same total bonus in the end and it gives the player a little more customization over their character and a little bit more time to figure out what direction they want to take their character before choosing an archtype.

Waking up this morning, I had the same conclusion. Why not just remove ASI from class/race/background. I could probably give a little better point buy allotment or standard array to compensate.

Is there a way to roll for stat that would give an average result a little higher than the normal 4d6?

 

[jgsugden]

Step 1: Allow players to change their racial ASI if they have a good story reason for it.

No further steps nevessary.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Waking up this morning, I had the same conclusion. Why not just remove ASI from class/race/background. I could probably give a little better point buy allotment or standard array to compensate.

Is there a way to roll for stat that would give an average result a little higher than the normal 4d6?

There are several ways that I have used but I found the best method is 3d6, count all 1s as 6. So a roll of 4, 1, 4, would be 4, 6, 4. A 1, 1, 1, would be 6, 6, 6. This gives an average of exactly 13 and a range of 6-18. The majority of the rolls (73%) will be between 10 and 15. There is a decent change (21%) for a slightly higher (16-17) or lower score (8-9), and only about 5% for 18 (mostly) or a 6-7.

I've been using this method for a long time and like it very much if you want something a bit better than 4d6. If the 1 becomes 6 is a bit much, change it a 5 and it still works pretty well (anything lower, and it no longer gives scores better than 4d6).

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Step 1: Allow players to change their racial ASI if they have a good story reason for it.

No further steps nevessary.

Which, in other words, is just allow them to put them where they want anyway.

 

[jgsugden]

Which, in other words, is just allow them to put them where they want anyway.

If you ignore the insanely important part of what I said, yes.

 

[5ekyu]

If you ignore the insanely important part of what I said, yes.

Good story is not that hard - as long as you and the GM agree on what good means.

Which seems to turn this into "if i like what you said."

But what if the player has different tastes - they just get stuck?