D&D 5E What To Do With Racial ASIs?

[Tonguez]

We agree with the end result, but we have different approaches. I want the backgrounds to have things in which they can be better than others. I want Sages to be the smartest, Soldiers to be the toughest, Adepts to be the wisest, and Charlatans to be the most charming.

In my mind Legolas isn't a crack shot because all elves are born that way; he is a crack shot because he has the Soldier (Archer) background and has spent years and years practicing with the longbow.

So if Glib son of Gimli spent time with his ‘uncle Legolas’ I could give him +2 dex +1 Wis and you’d see nothing strange with him skating down Oliphant trunks while firing multishots from his dwarven short bow.

so the only thing to distinguish him from a elf is stone cunning

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But that's a spotlight issue, not a rules issue.

Expecting the rules to police your spotlight boundary is always going to be messy.

For that matter, you're also saying that your narrative ("my PC is the strongest!") should automatically trump another player's narrative ("my PC is the strongest!"). Which is... well, it's bad table-manners to say the least. If it's really important to you that your character's narrative is unchallenged, then that's something you need to talk to your DM and other players about, not something to wave a rulebook at.

That is the narrative that is associated with the fiction of the race. I expect the rules to respect that narrative. We could habve exact same argument about dragonborn or aarakocra abilities. If I want my ork to fly and breathe fire why shouldn't the rules allow that? It is the same thing, but if the race's niche is something that can be represented by ability scores, it according to many should just be claimable by any race, whilst I doubt many would extent the same courtesy to more exotic capabilities.

Now several people have made examples how the rules are already kinda bad at respecting that narrative. This certainly is true. To me this is not an argument for making the situation even worse, and removing the little lore to rules correlation there is!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sounds like 1E or 2E is the game for you then?

Super not. But I guess there had to be something they did well.

 

[EscherEnigma]

[...] and you’d see nothing strange with him skating down Oliphant trunks while firing multishots from his dwarven short bow.

If he's a PC, he's "strange" by default, so obviously the answer is "yes, quite strange indeed."

But to the spirit of the question... RAW, there is only a 5% difference in probability of success between similarly min-maxed elves and dwarves. And after a point, that difference goes away too. So however high you set the DC for "skating down Oliphant trunks", the elf will only be 5% more likely to succeed then the dwarf. If you set the DC so high that the dwarf cannot succeed, then the elf only has a 5% chance to succeed at all.

So as I said above, if this sort of shananigan is part of your narrative, the rules won't support you. The elf is only marginally more able to do it then the dwarf.

To me this is not an argument for making the situation even worse, and removing the little lore to rules correlation there is!

The "lore to rules correlation" is better represented by NPCs, which are under the DM's thumb, and can be set to support any lore the DM wants to support.

PCs, being exceptional, will always be able to trivially defy lore.

 

[CleverNickName]

So if Glib son of Gimli spent time with his ‘uncle Legolas’ I could give him +2 dex +1 Wis and you’d see nothing strange with him skating down Oliphant trunks while firing multishots from his dwarven short bow.

so the only thing to distinguish him from a elf is stone cunning

That's right. A dwarf that trained for years to be agile and quick on their feet would not look strange skating down an oliphant trunk alongside his fellow elven trainees...not any weirder than Aragon would look doing that same trick. They are both trained in agility; it makes sense they would use similar techniques. But anyone--even an elf--who grew up on a farm, or spent his entire life in a library, would look absurd in that situation.

Ability scores need not be definitive of a person's ancestry; I'd prefer they be influenced by background.

 

[MGibster]

For that matter, you're also saying that your narrative ("my PC is the strongest!") should automatically trump another player's narrative ("my PC is the strongest!"). Which is... well, it's bad table-manners to say the least. If it's really important to you that your character's narrative is unchallenged, then that's something you need to talk to your DM and other players about, not something to wave a rulebook at.

D&D isn't a free form make believe session. It's got a set of rules we expect all participants to follow (more or less) and often a particular campaign setting the characters will adventure in. No player should show up with a halfling character expecting to be the strongest unless they've spoken to the GM about increasing the character's strength beyond the maximum possible with the rules as written.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

PCs, being exceptional, will always be able to trivially defy lore.

So that flying, fire-breathing orc is cool with you then?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's right. A dwarf that trained for years to be agile and quick on their feet would not look strange skating down an oliphant trunk alongside his fellow elven trainees. They are both trained in the same techniques, after all. But an elf that grew up on a farm would look strange indeed in that situation.

Ability scores need not be definitive of a person's ancestry; I'd prefer they be influenced by background.

So you do you believe that this is how it would actually work? Like in any even remotely realistic context? Can I train a hippo to be as agile than a squirrel? Squirrel to be as strong at the hippo? Does it work like that?

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m not opposed to doing away with racial bonus to ASI’s based on the idea that PCs are special.

Of course the special pc vs non-special PCs has been a big point of argument in the past.

 

[CleverNickName]

So you do you believe that this is how it would actually work? Like in any even remotely realistic context? Can I train a hippo to be as agile than a squirrel? Squirrel to be as strong at the hippo? Does it work like that?

I think you're trying to force the Race >> Experience point of view, and I've been pretty clear about my opinion on the matter. You can start comparing soil bacteria to mango trees, and I'm still not going to think it's a good idea (or even a good argument).

I'm not going to try to change your mind, either. If you enjoy playing the D&D races as-written, you should continue to do so. You are under no obligation to agree with my opinion.