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

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I’m not really interested in arguing about this, but the earliest DnD has, in my opinion, demonstrably clearer influences from the authors I listed than Tolkien. Perhaps not in races, but in regards to tone, objectives, and overall philosophy of the game.
Sure, but races and monsters are the tip of the spear for a lot of folks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Amrûnril

Adventurer
Tying basic combat effectiveness to ability scores remains one of the most limiting parts of D&D. As long as it persists, ability scores are best kept separate from species.

More specifically, I'd say the limiting part is doing it in such a way that some ability scores (determined by class in a largely fixed manner) contribute to multiple important combat parameters, while others do little or nothing in combat.

If dexterity-focused rogues, intelligence-focused rogues and charisma-focused rogues all had distinct but balanced ways to be effective in combat, that would facilitate a lot of variety in gameplay and character creation. But if dexterity contributes to a rogue's chance to hit, their chance of being hit, the damage they deal, and their turn order (while intelligence and charisma need a specialized feature to contribute to even one of those parameters), then prioritizing any other score over dexterity (even a thematically rogue-ish one) requires a deliberate sacrifice of combat effectiveness.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
All races/species being equally qualified at all times for all classes is not "less generic" when discussing how generic races/species are. The more you reduce races/species to mere flavor and less mechanics, the more generic it becomes.

By your logic, all weapons do the same damage and same thing would see no pigeonholing of weapons either, but that too would not be less generic. Pigeonholing is another way of saying specifying. This is what these words "generic" and "not generic" mean. It's not semantics, there is no competing definition here that's exactly what the word generic means in all contexts.
Forcing halfling to be casters an rogues = no generic.

Letting them be good at being fighters and barbars = generic.

This makes no sense.

For all of 5.5's prospective failings, providing more variety by dropping unnecessary restrictions and limits is not one of them.
 
Last edited:

Pauln6

Hero
I’m not really interested in arguing about this, but the earliest DnD has, in my opinion, demonstrably clearer influences from the authors I listed than Tolkien. Perhaps not in races, but in regards to tone, objectives, and overall philosophy of the game.
Oh yes, I was talking more about the racial tendencies (and possibly rangers). I'm not really sure about gnomes, but the other racial tendencies were very heavily influenced. Elves are a mixed bag, where the cultural tendencies were Tolkien heavy but the racial modifiers are hugely diluted. Classes and multi-class limitations were influenced by Tolkien but again, the dilution of Elven supremacy must have taken inspiration from elsewhere.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Forcing halfling to be casters an rogues = no generic.
Nobody is forcing anything?

Letting them be good at being fighters and barbars = generic.

They can still be good at any class under both systems. Heck Treantmonk did a build of every single class once for halflings. All were highly effective. BUT, they had the legacy bonuses and the race maintained their dexterous reputation.

This makes no sense.
Well yeah if you strawman it to pretend halflings could never be fighters or barbarians and only be casters and rogues sure. It's a false narrative though.
For all of 5.5's prospective failings, providing more variety be dropping unnecessary restrictions and limits is not one of them.
What you call unnecessarily I call useful for the reasons I said earlier, copied again below. Which you have not addressed as you decided to attack semantics and then presented a false narrative.

I dislike the continuing trend to make races generic. In fact I dislike any aspect of the game which trends towards making it some generic universal role player game. There are other RPGs for that. (like the game I just named: GURPs).

One major reason for D&D's success is branding of it's specific quirks, and a large portion of branding is recognizable elements. Alignment is one (everyone knows what the meme about alignments and assigning real people or movie or TV characters to those alignments). Another is races. Another is classes. And hit points and AC and a d20. These are all key elements of what makes D&D a specific game people recognize and not a generic one purely to be adapted to each tables whims.

The more of these elements you make generic (all races get X) or eliminate (remove all references to alignment) the less it becomes D&D and the more it becomes a generic RPG.
 
Last edited:


Yaarel

He Mage
If there is anything that I hate about the d20 system is the damn d20 die.
I like the d20. It has just the right amount of probability.

A +1 is almost negligible, and not especially appealing.

But a +2 is significant, and people go out of their way to obtain it.

The increments of 5% seem at that useful threshold.
 

Horwath

Legend
I like the d20. It has just the right amount of probability.

A +1 is almost negligible, and not especially appealing.

But a +2 is significant, and people go out of their way to obtain it.

The increments of 5% seem at that useful threshold.
it's just too much of a spread in "perceived competency".
Especially in skills department. 3d6 works great for ability/skill/tool checks. It forces most results to 8-13 range, as it should be with skills.

3d6 might be too much of a bell curve for attacks as there is so much of them so it evens itself out,
but I still prefer d12+4 over d20. Same average but the spread is only 12 points instead of 20
It is still only one dice, there is little more crits, but hey, everyone loves to roll a crit, advantage/disadvantage still works, and it's not cumbersome to work like with 3d6+Elven accuracy(9 dice in 3 colors if you want to roll everything at once)
 

Yaarel

He Mage
it's just too much of a spread in "perceived competency".
Especially in skills department. 3d6 works great for ability/skill/tool checks. It forces most results to 8-13 range, as it should be with skills.

3d6 might be too much of a bell curve for attacks as there is so much of them so it evens itself out,
but I still prefer d12+4 over d20. Same average but the spread is only 12 points instead of 20
It is still only one dice, there is little more crits, but hey, everyone loves to roll a crit, advantage/disadvantage still works, and it's not cumbersome to work like with 3d6+Elven accuracy(9 dice in 3 colors if you want to roll everything at once)
I think 2024 will make Advantage much more common. Especially in skills. The fact that a character can use both the applicable tool proficiency and the applicable skill proficiency, means skill checks can often be at an Advantage.

Advantage is an interesting mechanic. To be it feels worth about a +2½. In other words, if I have to choose between a flat +2 bonus or Advantage, I would take Advantage. But if a choice between a +3 bonus and Advantage, I would take the +3.

Advantage is great for making ordinary checks more reliable. But Advantage helps less and less when the DC challenge is more and more difficult. Then it is the flat +3 that can let one succeed over a DC that even normally impossible.

Additionally, Inspiration can grant Advantage, when the routine check must succeed.

As DM, I also plan to allow the use of a musical instrument to the Tool Proficiency for various kinds of checks, like Persuasion of a crowd. Amaze them and then as a celebrity ask a favor. Music can also help for some Medicine checks. And so on. I let get the players get narratively creative.
 

Horwath

Legend
I think 2024 will make Advantage much more common. Especially in skills. The fact that a character can use both the applicable tool proficiency and the applicable skill proficiency, means skill checks can often be at an Advantage.

Advantage is an interesting mechanic. To be it feels worth about a +2½. In other words, if I have to choose between a flat +2 bonus or Advantage, I would take Advantage. But if a choice between a +3 bonus and Advantage, I would take the +3.

Advantage is great for making ordinary checks more reliable. But Advantage helps less and less when the DC challenge is more and more difficult. Then it is the flat +3 that can let one succeed over a DC that even normally impossible.

Additionally, Inspiration can grant Advantage, when the routine check must succeed.

As DM, I also plan to allow the use of a musical instrument to the Tool Proficiency for various kinds of checks, like Persuasion of a crowd. Amaze them and then as a celebrity ask a favor. Music can also help for some Medicine checks. And so on. I let get the players get narratively creative.
That is all true, but still for me d20 has too much variability.

I.E.
if you are trained in a skill and have good score(16), that gives you +5 bonus to your skill check.

with d20 that gives you 5% chance for a very hard DC(25), with just basic training, maybe very hard DC should be unattainable?
but you can also fail DC 10(easy) 20% of the time, that is also little too much for someone trained.

If we go from d20+5 to d12+4+5(keeping save average and only one die roll, avoiding bell curve);
we get:
DC 25 goes from 5% to 0%
DC 20 goes from 30% to 17%
DC 15 goes from 55% to 58%
DC 10 goes from 80% to 100%
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top