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

[MechaTarrasque]

I would give each race advantage on saves/checks for one stat. Devote more energy to making neat racial abilities and feats.

If a PC wants to multiclass, instead of stat minimums, he/she needs to make a check for the main stats for the new class and the original class (or classes for dip enthusiasts) . Fail the check, try again when you level up. Humans have advantage on all multiclass checks. That gives humans a nice gimmick that isn't particularly game-breaking.

 

[jmartkdr2]

From what we've seen in other threads, I guess we simply differ on this. It seems to me a lot of people wouldn't mind a change, but again without a strong bias towards one or the other, any change would create a different conflict. Instead of people saying it makes no sense to have racial trait ASIs, they would argue about why this class or that background gets to pick X or Y, but not Z.

I was hoping for more evidence of a preferred chance concept, and then we could explore maybe the best way to implement it with the least amount of resistance.

It's the same problem as psions - most people either would like to see a psion or are indifferent to it - but there's nothing like a consensus on what a psion should be, so any actual proposal gets too much pushback.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not necessarily. The vote on the method is split, but more votes have been cast for some kind of change over no change at all.

I'm more sympathetic to a desire to leave 5e as is, but a possible 5.5e or 6e should almost certainly move off of racial ASIs.

When your dealing with a plurality you can’t combine options like you are trying to do.

 

[Guest 6801328]

And your solution is have to play same characters that are different in name only?

That seems to suggest that two characters of the same class that have the same 6 ability scores are identical. But surely that's not what you mean?

 

[FrogReaver]

Since backgrounds are defined as customizable in the PHB, there's really no difference between "by background" and "floating."

I would define that as floating ASI’s.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Since backgrounds are defined as customizable in the PHB, there's really no difference between "by background" and "floating."

True, and I suppose I could have split it into both options: class or background instead of writing it as an and/or, but because of that the people who like moving them to class wouldn't have them floating (or not nearly as much, maybe with two options probably).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That seems to suggest that two characters of the same class that have the same 6 ability scores are identical. But surely that's not what you mean?

I mean that yes. Mechanically they're almost identical.

 

[Micah Sweet]

True, and I suppose I could have split it into both options: class or background instead of writing it as an and/or, but because of that the people who like moving them to class wouldn't have them floating (or not nearly as much, maybe with two options probably).

I still like splitting ancestry and culture, and putting ASIs on the culture side.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I still like splitting ancestry and culture, and putting ASIs on the culture side.

I suppose it depends on if you attribute ASIs to biology or upbringing (i.e. culture). My preference is for ASI to be biological, but I know a lot of people don't like that idea as it makes them feel uncomfortable.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Which just changes how long it takes for a PC to get to 20. A 20 str half-orc is not, per RAW and RAI, any stronger then a 20 str halfling.

There may well be Str 20 half-orcs in many large cities, but in order to find a Str 20 halfling, you might have the scour the entire continent.