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

[Crimson Longinus]

That kind of blows my mind.

Character 1: Orc fighter. Proficiency in Intimidation, Relentless Endurance and Great Weapon fighting style (wields a Maul) Outlander background, speaks Orc and Giantese, and plays the War Drums.

Character 2: Elven fighter. Fey Ancestry and Trance abilities. Dueling fighting style (wields a Longsword). Noble background. Speaks Celestial and plays Dragonchess.

I mean, really, even if their 6 ability scores are the same, you think these two characters are almost identical?

You differentiated them in certain ways that have nothing to do with the race. Their fighting styles and background have nothing to do with the race. Their actual race related differences are marginal ribbons.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

I can't understand why this keeps coming up. Yes, I know I have said this pretty much same thing couple of times already, but people just keep repeating this same blatantly terrible idea. If we are concerned about 'unfortunate implications' then this is way, way more problematic than the bonuses being tied to the races. Cultures in fantasy world correlate to real cultures much more directly than the fantasy species do, and having such different culture-based capabilities within one species is much closer to real racist assumptions. If in your attempts to be more inclusive you correct the grave injustice of orcs having different capabilities than hobbits by making the 'fantasy Europeans' to have different capabilities than the 'fantasy Africans' then something has gone horribly wrong.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can't understand why this keeps coming up. Yes, I know I have said this pretty much same thing couple of times already, but people just keep repeating this same blatantly terrible idea. If we are concerned about 'unfortunate implications' then this is way, way more problematic than the bonuses being tied to the races. Cultures in fantasy world correlate to real cultures much more directly than the fantasy species do, and having such different culture-based capabilities within one species is much closer to real racist assumptions. If in your attempts to be more inclusive you correct the grave injustice of orcs having different capabilities than hobbits by making the 'fantasy Europeans' to have different capabilities than the 'fantasy Africans' then something has gone horribly wrong.

I can see your point, but judging by the sales of Ancestry and Culture, people don't seem to be making that connection. Which in turn suggests that a higher profile product along similar lines has a good chance of being successful.

 

[AliasBot]

First idea that comes to mind is a combination of "floating +2/+1" and "move to class and/or background": a +1 tied to class, and a floating +2 as a formalized Ability Score Improvement, complete with the option to swap it out for a feat. (Which has the added benefit, with the existence of species-specific feats, of letting you lean into your character's species from the outset in a more focused way than flat stat buffs can provide.)

Would also be fine with either of those choices by themselves, or with the "just boost standard array/point buy" option.

 

[Sadras]

It wasn't really an issue in TSR D&D where characters didn't improve their ability scores as they leveled, or in 3e and 4e where characters could improve their ability scores indefinitely-- limited only by character level-- but combining regular ability score increases with ability score caps that a lucky character could hit at 1st level is one of the most incomprehensibly bad design decisions in 5e.

So I DO agree with you - it is also not an ideal design for my game-view either.
I think they should have started from a grittier base, and had the superhero improvement be an add-on for those that desired it.

I'm perhaps more forgiving than you in that I do not mind to tinker with the system and the system is open to that.
Whereas I felt 4e was not, so for me that was a huge improvement, and 3e was just too heavy for me as a DM. And despite my love for 2e and BECMI, returning to earlier editions would not have suited my table (players) - 5e works for me with all its warts. I make it what I want.

 

[MGibster]

This is exactly the problem with ASI’s being tied to races. People tend to go for “optimal” races over picking them for flavor reasons, at times even eschewing a race they really want to play because it doesn’t work for the class they want. Tying it to background just kicks the can down the road. Either tie it to class, float it, or get rid of it and boost point buy, but let people make their picks based on flavor instead of stats.

You're slipping into one way truism here. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a play style that revolves around optimization at the expense of flavor. It might not be what you or I prefer, but there are plenty of people for whom optimizing builds is part of the fun. And honestly, no matter where you tie attribute bonuses, those players who love optimizing builds will continue to do so.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I have said this before but I say it again. I dislike cookie-cutter builds, I dislike that every character of the same class will have roughly the same attributes. I dislike this even outside the species issue, but it of course is related to that as well.

Main stats tend to be too important. One counter intuitive solution I have considered to make the main stats of each class to cost more points in point buy than other stats. So basically you could get your main stat to 16 and two secondary stats to 14, or your main stat to 14 and two secondary stats to 16. Then the optimal choice might not always be so obvious.

I also feel that classes should have better support for more variable secondary abilities. It is fine that all wizards need to be pretty smart, but there should be more leeway in assigning other attributes. Making a strong brawny wizard (who is still pretty smart) shouldn't be an idiotic choice. Subclasses could do more work here. For example there could be a some sort of Battle Wizard which fights more like a Cleric combing magic and melee.

 

[Scott Christian]

This is exactly the problem with ASI’s being tied to races. People tend to go for “optimal” races over picking them for flavor reasons, at times even eschewing a race they really want to play because it doesn’t work for the class they want. Tying it to background just kicks the can down the road. Either tie it to class, float it, or get rid of it and boost point buy, but let people make their picks based on flavor instead of stats.

Are you sure they do that? What about players with long-term multiclass goals? What about players that roleplay more than roll-play? What about players that don't take the time to min/max or haven't learned the rules thoroughly enough? What about players that just have a vision, and they do not care? Out of my last five characters, I have played only one that would tend to be called optimal:

• Half-Orc wizard
• Wood elf barbarian
• Stout halfling warlock
• Drow rogue
• Human fighter

But, I like many others, have fun with a vision. I, like many others, also have fun trying to focus on a skill or sub-skill of a class and make that optimal. For example, my wood elf barbarian was incredibly fast. I think by fifth level he was moving 110' per round without using my standard action. He did terrible damage, but he could escape. My halfling warlock never took a spell that caused damage. My drow rogue, while optimal, focuses more of his spells (arcane trickster) and skills on diplomacy.
I can't believe I am a rarity here. Goes back to that framing: Everyone yelling to change it because they only view it through the eyes of min/maxers, and not the eyes of players making CHARACTERS. Which by the way is what 5e refers to the entire Section 1 of the PHB - Creating a character.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Are you sure they do that? What about players with long-term multiclass goals? What about players that roleplay more than roll-play? What about players that don't take the time to min/max or haven't learned the rules thoroughly enough? What about players that just have a vision, and they do not care? Out of my last five characters, I have played only one that would tend to be called optimal:

• Half-Orc wizard
• Wood elf barbarian
• Stout halfling warlock
• Drow rogue
• Human fighter

But, I like many others, have fun with a vision. I, like many others, also have fun trying to focus on a skill or sub-skill of a class and make that optimal. For example, my wood elf barbarian was incredibly fast. I think by fifth level he was moving 110' per round without using my standard action. He did terrible damage, but he could escape. My halfling warlock never took a spell that caused damage. My drow rogue, while optimal, focuses more of his spells (arcane trickster) and skills on diplomacy.
I can't believe I am a rarity here. Goes back to that framing: Everyone yelling to change it because they only view it through the eyes of min/maxers, and not the eyes of players making CHARACTERS. Which by the way is what 5e refers to the entire Section 1 of the PHB - Creating a character.

I suspect that the way you do it is how overwhelming majority of players do it. The perception just gets skewed because people who care about mechanical minutiae, optimal builds and min-maxing are far more likely to visit gaming forums like this.

 

[Remathilis]

You jest, but like... It’s not a bad suggestion.

There are plenty of systems already that do this. Find one and follow your bliss. Don't turn D&D into something it's not.