Racial ASI removal: ASI to Class and Background

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

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

You might feel that it was "insanely important", but personally I could come up with a good story reason for any race to get any bonus, making it in effect, not insanely important at all IMO. Hence, my comment.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

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?

Good points all.

 

[jgsugden]

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

Hard is not the issue.

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

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

Players do not play in the DM's world. The players and the DM craft a world together. It is the duty of the player and DM to work together to find a path that works for everyone.

If the DM has a storyline that would be violated by a player choice, they need to consider ways around it. That could include asking the player if they are ok with another approach, or it could be the DM tweaking something. The DM should not just dictate to a player what can be in "their" world.

 

[jgsugden]

You might feel that it was "insanely important", but personally I could come up with a good story reason for any race to get any bonus, making it in effect, not insanely important at all IMO. Hence, my comment.

You're looking at the destination. I'm looking at the journey. The story, in a role playing game, is the center. The mechanics are just tools to help us provide some random chance and unknowns into the story so that it is not predestined.

Justifying a mechanic with a story decision isn't all bad, however. If the mechanics sound fun... GREAT! Come up with a fun story to support it and you've got fun mechanics plus fun story. However, finding fun mechanics that support a fun story idea is usually a better path to success as the fun story born of a mechanical objective is often more strained storytelling - and thus harder to maximize as fun. Regardless, it can still work out well either way - the point is to have a PC that mechanically and story-wise is enjoyable for the player, the DM and the other players.

 

[5ekyu]

You're looking at the destination. I'm looking at the journey. The story, in a role playing game, is the center. The mechanics are just tools to help us provide some random chance and unknowns into the story so that it is not predestined.

Justifying a mechanic with a story decision isn't all bad, however. If the mechanics sound fun... GREAT! Come up with a fun story to support it and you've got fun mechanics plus fun story. However, finding fun mechanics that support a fun story idea is usually a better path to success as the fun story born of a mechanical objective is often more strained storytelling - and thus harder to maximize as fun. Regardless, it can still work out well either way - the point is to have a PC that mechanically and story-wise is enjoyable for the player, the DM and the other players.

You are jumping past the journey tho abd definitely past the crossroads **you** put into play.

**if they have a good story for it** only has any meaning at all if it wont always be rhe case.

If you are basically ssying "we will always wind up with a good story" by working together or whatever then you are as JG pointing out saying "just pick your scores" since there will be story and it will be good.

You get to the point of it being *and* not *if* as well as good story being there even if they keep the core stats.

If you are not gonna ever say "no" to an ability score swap then its not *if* and maybe only barely "when."

If you are going to say "no" to an ability score swap then its got the issues being raised.

But, pretending to make something dependent on a requirement that you are just gonna give anyway is semantics.

Or can i just not give good story for my character as long as i k e p the race scores as is?

For me, the chargen is the chargen - regardless of whether you are the type who,prefers to start backgrounded story driven (in the middle of your story) or frontgrounded "my story gets good now" (start in the beginning and play to create new story) or all the other points between.

 

[coldermoss]

Every time I see one of these, I always have to say the same thing: make sure to give Mountain Dwarves something in return for taking away their extra strength ASI or change their flavor to Mountain Dwarves being more inclined to mages and rogues than their brethren, because Dwarven Armor Training is only good for lightly-armored types.

 

[FrogReaver]

Every time I see one of these, I always have to say the same thing: make sure to give Mountain Dwarves something in return for taking away their extra strength ASI or change their flavor to Mountain Dwarves being more inclined to mages and rogues than their brethren, because Dwarven Armor Training is only good for lightly-armored types.

The mountain dwarf commoner begs to differ

 

[CTurbo]

I've always liked the idea of each class getting +1 and +1 and every race getting a single +1 so you could combo them into either +2 and +1 or +1, +1, +1

example here would be Paladin gets +1 Str and Con. Monk gets +1 Dex and Wis. Fighter gets +1 Con and Str OR Dex.
Goliath and Half-Orc gets +1 Str. Elf and Tabaxi gets +1 Dex. Dwarf gets +1 Con. Humans get +1 to any one, etc...

Another option would be every class gets a +1 and every race gets a static +1 and then each subrace gets a varying +1

example here would be Elf gets +1 Dex. Wood Elf adds +1 Wis, High Elf adds +1 Int, Drow adds +1 Cha
Barbarians get +1 Str, Wizard gets +1 Int, etc...

The only problem here is not all races have a subrace.

 

[jgsugden]

You are jumping past the journey tho abd definitely past the crossroads **you** put into play.

**if they have a good story for it** only has any meaning at all if it wont always be rhe case.

If you are basically ssying "we will always wind up with a good story" by working together or whatever then you are as JG pointing out saying "just pick your scores" since there will be story and it will be good.

You get to the point of it being *and* not *if* as well as good story being there even if they keep the core stats.

If you are not gonna ever say "no" to an ability score swap then its not *if* and maybe only barely "when."

If you are going to say "no" to an ability score swap then its got the issues being raised.

But, pretending to make something dependent on a requirement that you are just gonna give anyway is semantics.

Or can i just not give good story for my character as long as i k e p the race scores as is?

For me, the chargen is the chargen - regardless of whether you are the type who,prefers to start backgrounded story driven (in the middle of your story) or frontgrounded "my story gets good now" (start in the beginning and play to create new story) or all the other points between.

Let me cast calm emotions first as you seem to have a pickle in the haystack, here.

There is a fundamental difference in our perspectives.

You're talking about saying "No". I, as a DM, will only say No in one circumstance - if the player does not fit in the game, the group will tell them, "No, you can't play with us." And this is something I've only done three times since the 1970s.

Whena player comes to me and says, "I want my hafling to get +8 to Strength and +7 to Charisma because it'd be funny", I will not say yes. I'll say, Let's talk. I'll explain why I think that would be bad for the game and ask why they thought their idea was good. I expect that we'll reach an understanding and come up with a gameplan that works for everyone. In the rare instance where the player is unyielding and disruptive, we talk as a group and decide what makes sense together. That could result in the group offering an ultimatum to the player - back down or leave - but that is ridiculousy unlikely.

Yes, there are judgement calls I, as a DM, am making on when to go to the rest of he group or when to accept a player modification idea - but you're acting like a fierce battle is a likely occurence when, in my experience, after playing with hundreds of different players over the decades, find it to be exceedingly rare.

Relax. Ask the players to work with you on a good story to address the mechanical elements they want *if* they come to you with a mechanics first perspective. As long as you get to good mechanics and a good story, you're in great shape. If you can't, suggest going back to the drawing board. If that doesn't work, maybe you're in that rare corner case where it isn't a good player fit. That will result in a great game almost all of the time.

 

[5ekyu]

Let me cast calm emotions first as you seem to have a pickle in the haystack, here.

There is a fundamental difference in our perspectives.

You're talking about saying "No". I, as a DM, will only say No in one circumstance - if the player does not fit in the game, the group will tell them, "No, you can't play with us." And this is something I've only done three times since the 1970s.

Whena player comes to me and says, "I want my hafling to get +8 to Strength and +7 to Charisma because it'd be funny", I will not say yes. I'll say, Let's talk. I'll explain why I think that would be bad for the game and ask why they thought their idea was good. I expect that we'll reach an understanding and come up with a gameplan that works for everyone. In the rare instance where the player is unyielding and disruptive, we talk as a group and decide what makes sense together. That could result in the group offering an ultimatum to the player - back down or leave - but that is ridiculousy unlikely.

Yes, there are judgement calls I, as a DM, am making on when to go to the rest of he group or when to accept a player modification idea - but you're acting like a fierce battle is a likely occurence when, in my experience, after playing with hundreds of different players over the decades, find it to be exceedingly rare.

Relax. Ask the players to work with you on a good story to address the mechanical elements they want *if* they come to you with a mechanics first perspective. As long as you get to good mechanics and a good story, you're in great shape. If you can't, suggest going back to the drawing board. If that doesn't work, maybe you're in that rare corner case where it isn't a good player fit. That will result in a great game almost all of the time.

Long way of saying "it's not really an *if* after all.

Remember as you look down from the "I say yes" pedestal, I did not put a *you can have this "if" you give good story* qualifier to start with or at any point. That requirement was yours - and now it's not seeming like actually a qualifier at all.

In my games the same suite of mechanical options exist for everybody, not setting aside some for just the *good* storytellers. After all, some like to show their story thru actions in play, not pre-game novelization.