D&D (2024) Should all races/lineages have +2/+1/+1 ASI?

[Azzy]

I agree with that also. remove any ASI from creation process.

make default array: 16,16,14,12,12,10

4e used 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10

If you want it to be on par with rolling 4d6-L, use 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If math being the only reason a species is interesting is fun for you, enjoy!

Yeah, THAT'S a perfectly honest understanding of that position, made in good faith.

 

[Incenjucar]

Yeah, THAT'S a perfectly honest understanding of that position, made in good faith.

My original statement:
"If your species' ability scores are what make it interesting you already have a failed design."

 

[Mistwell]

I'm pretty tired of people insisting that making all species more playable for all classes is making them 'generic'.

It's literally that, whether you are tired of it or not. Generic means "characteristic of or relating to a class or group of things; not specific." If you make them all not specific, you're making them all generic. And what you mean by "more playable" is "less specific" right? You want them to not specify particularized ability scores as having a bonus or a minimum, right? That is making them "not specific" which is "generic."

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's literally that, whether you are tired of it or not. Generic means "characteristic of or relating to a class or group of things; not specific." If you make them all not specific, you're making them all generic. And what you mean by "more playable" is "less specific" right? You want them to not specify particularized ability scores as having a bonus or a minimum, right? That is making them "not specific" which is "generic."

Vocabulary doesn't lie.

 

[Azzy]

It's literally that, whether you are tired of it or not. Generic means "characteristic of or relating to a class or group of things; not specific." If you make them all not specific, you're making them all generic. And what you mean by "more playable" is "less specific" right? You want them to not specify particularized ability scores as having a bonus or a minimum, right? That is making them "not specific" which is "generic."

See, I don't think that racial ASI do anything to make species less generic. It's actual features that do that.

 

[DammitVictor]

The way I'm doing it, going forward, is to remove all 1st level ASIs from race/background/etc and have players assign their stats according to the standard point buy (27 points).

But, to replace the standard ASIs, players get to roll 5d4 for each ability score, in order, and use the higher result (between the roll and the buy) for each ability.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

The way I'm doing it, going forward, is to remove all 1st level ASIs from race/background/etc and have players assign their stats according to the standard point buy (27 points).

But, to replace the standard ASIs, players get to roll 5d4 for each ability score, in order, and use the higher result (between the roll and the buy) for each ability.

I mean... that's one way to create a party of demigods at level 1.

 

[Mistwell]

See, I don't think that racial ASI do anything to make species less generic. It's actual features that do that.

How is "this race has two higher strength than other races" not something which makes it less generic? It's saying they're meaningfully differentiated from other races in their tendency to be physically stronger, right?

 

[DammitVictor]

I mean... that's one way to create a party of demigods at level 1.

The average of 5d4 is only 12.5.