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

[Crimson Longinus]

I think this thread has about run it’s course. It has been useful to me in understanding why some people like racial ASIs.

Hasta.

Thank you! At least one person understood why we like them!

(I certainly understand the rationale for getting rid of them, I just don't agree with it.)

 

[jmartkdr2]

Yep.

I don't understand why people are relucant to have racial differences based on biology, etc. Animals IRL are strong, faster, more "hardy" or whatever than humans. Aliens in fiction are commonly portrayed as superior to humans in one aspect or another. But in D&D, the idea that an orc should not be as smart or a halfling not as strong rubs some people the wrong way? Sorry, I just don't get that.

It's an issue of scale - no one's arguing squirrels and humans should have the same stats.

But the rest of the game supports the idea that DnD races are similar to real world races - for example, they can interbreed - so any trope in the game that's also part of the 'justifying racism' manual should be examined.

Orcs having an int penalty is the best example for the "this is a problem' case, halfings having a strength penalty is the worst example for that. So where do we draw the line?

Another compromise idea: get rid of mental racial ASIs, but leave in the physical ones since those are less of an issue from a representational perspective?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's an issue of scale - no one's arguing squirrels and humans should have the same stats.

But the rest of the game supports the idea that DnD races are similar to real world races - for example, they can interbreed - so any trope in the game that's also part of the 'justifying racism' manual should be examined.

Orcs having an int penalty is the best example for the "this is a problem' case, halfings having a strength penalty is the worst example for that. So where do we draw the line?

Another compromise idea: get rid of mental racial ASIs, but leave in the physical ones since those are less of an issue from a representational perspective?

Elves, orcs and maybe dwarves can interbreed, but there are plenty of races in D&D where there's no evidence of that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Thank you! At least one person understood why we like them!

(I certainly understand the rationale for getting rid of them, I just don't agree with it.)

perhaps A variant character creation rule. Your racially granted ASI’s can go into any ability scores? I can get behind an officially supported variant rule for this.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But the rest of the game supports the idea that DnD races are similar to real world races - for example, they can interbreed - so any trope in the game that's also part of the 'justifying racism' manual should be examined.

IRL difference species (or whatever) of equines can interbreed, but some are faster, stronger, and even (in some circles) considered smarter, etc. As can canines, felines, etc.

So, no, I don't see the reason why people should have such an issue over biological ASI differences, even if races can interbreed.

 

[FrogReaver]

IRL difference species (or whatever) of equines can interbreed, but some are faster, stronger, and even (in some circles) considered smarter, etc.

So, no, I don't see the reason why people should have such an issue over biological ASI differences, even if races can interbreed.

Most animals really. Different breeds of animals are used for vastly different purposes because of their genetic proclivities. Milk cows Vs beef cows. The various different breeds of chickens. Even dog breeds have specific qualities they are known for.

 

[CleverNickName]

If the most interesting thing about a racial option is the numerical adjustment to ability scores, the developers need to send it back to the drawing board. Dwarves are more than just wads of hit points, elves are more than just "quick," etc.

I'd go even farther than what @Charlaquin said: I'd be fine with scrapping the ability score adjustments altogether, and replacing them with proficiencies, expertise, advantage on certain checks, unique abilities, etc. Then, elves aren't quick because they have +2 to Dex; the are quick because they have Advantage on initiative, are automatically proficient with longbows, and move an extra 5 feet per round. Dwarves wouldn't be hardy because of a +2 to Con; they are hardy because they get an extra hit point per level, have Advantage on Constitution saves, and heal maximum whenever they spend Hit Dice. Or whatever, get creative and be as generous/stingy as you need. I'm not a game designer.

The goal is to make each race fundamentally different in ways that matter. Players would choose to play an elf because of the abilities that only elves get. If you're relying on ability score adjustments to accomplish that task, you are setting yourself up for disappointment because all races can boost all stats to the same cap. On a long enough timeline, that unique distinction fades to nothing.

If you want to add flat numerical bonuses, there are better ways to do that than "they're all just born this way."

 

[TwoSix]

I was using “thematic” as shorthand for the classic archetypes: elven archers, half-orc barbarians, human paladins, etc.

But used your way (which is better, really) then basically any combination is thematic, so that also undermines the original argument.

I wouldn't go that far. I'd just argue strong dichotomies are also thematic. But there are plenty of choices where the flavors and themes are mostly orthogonal, so they aren't really "thematic" options. I'm thinking like half-orc sorcerer or elven fighter.

 

[Charlaquin]

Different fantasy species indeed are biologically different in a way different human ethinicities are not. This is clearly the case whether the rules reflect it or not. Goliaths are about eight feet tall, halfling are three. Dragonborn are fire breathing lizards, aarakocra are birds with feathers. These are not just human ethnicities.

Right. There being physical differences is not the issue for me per se. The issue is those differences being primarily expressed through being better or worse at certain jobs. Goliaths being able to carry twice as much weight, dragonborn being able to breathe fire aarakocra being able to fly, these are cool and interesting ways to express the differences that don’t make them inherently better or worse than others at the tasks they are all capable of. Halflings having a 5% lower chance to hit with melee weapons than Goliaths? That’s a boring numbers difference that just makes them worse barbarians.

 

[FrogReaver]

Right. There being physical differences is not the issue for me per se. The issue is those differences being primarily expressed through being better or worse at certain jobs. Goliaths being able to carry twice as much weight, dragonborn being able to breathe fire aarakocra being able to fly, these are cool and interesting ways to express the differences that don’t make them inherently better or worse than others at the tasks they are all capable of. Halflings having a 5% lower chance to hit with melee weapons than Goliaths? That’s a boring numbers difference that just makes them worse barbarians.

Taking a step back for a moment...

Fictionally - Why the heck wouldn’t a halfling and a Goliath be better at different jobs?