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

[Charlaquin]

If I may step in and argue for a position I don’t take for a moment:

If PCs are purely exceptional then you can generate all their stats identically. The racial part could be viewed as being included in that or as not applying at all because of background - whichever your prefer.

You aren’t actually losing the racial stat bonus implications unless you choose to view it that way.

Think of stats more like abstractions. You generate your stats the same way but they are some unquantified combination of race, culture, background and class.

You get it.

 

[FrogReaver]

You get it.

I get it, but I still think it’s important to note that in general races tend to be stronger or more dexterous or etc than other races and that these differences have real impacts. (Even if PCs are treated as exceptional with stat abstractions).

 

[jmartkdr2]

I get it, but I still think it’s important to note that in general races tend to be stronger or more dexterous or etc than other races and that these differences have real impacts. (Even if PCs are treated as exceptional with stat abstractions).

Which should be reflected in the npc stat blocks - I'll agree it isn't in the current books, but tweaking that doesn't limit players so there's not a lot of reason not to do so. (beyond maybe not wanting to do the work)

Heck, and average goliath should have a 16 or so strength score, not 12. They're big peeps. But giving all goliath pc's a +6 str bonus at first level is probably a bad idea.

 

[FrogReaver]

Even without the racial ASI’s I think we will see a good number of characters following tropes as those tropes are often very popular in fantasy fiction and players often like to role play such tropes and/or fictional characters.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Just throwing this out there. Don't know if it will help or hinder anyone's points but here you go:

From Monster Manual:

True, although these aren't examples of PC's the stat blocks reflect the racial ASIs (or close to them) typical of the race-types in the PHB. The NPC section actually offers it as one way you can customize NPCs of different races.

shrug

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Compare the bugbear monster stat block to the PC race. You‘ll notice that the monster stat block has a feature called Brute that the PC race lacks, and the PC race has a feature called Long Arms that the monster stat block lacks. These sorts of discrepancies between NPC stat blocks and PC races are quite common, and the Ability Score Increase feature is no exception. Heck, the default commoner NPC stat block is human, but it has 10s across the board, so clearly neither the default human +1 to all ability scores nor the variant human +1 to 2 ability scores has been applied to it. Unless you’re assuming Commoners have 9s across the board by default, in which case do your dwarf commoners have 11 Con, 10 Wis or 11 Str and 9s in everything else?

The existence of exceptions doesn’t disprove a trend. Also, pretty sure that bugbear MM writeup was written before the PC writeup, and I’m pretty sure it has higher strength and Dex than most humans of a similar CR, and IIRC it does have longer reach than other medium critters, though that solution to the bugbear’s long ape like arms may have come later.
And the commoner block, IIRC, says “humanoid any”, not “humanoid human”. It has no ASI because it’s generic in the extreme.

Right, and my argument is that I don’t think Con score is a good way to define that for PCs.

Great, but let’s not pretend that what’s in the writeup is only there for PCs.

Neither am I, but you asked so I answered.

I didn’t ask what the rules are, however. “Not according to the rules” was not a remotely relevant reply.

That’s true, but at least it actually affects how halflings play instead of just changing their numbers when they do exactly the same stuff.

The math doesn’t affect how the character plays? I guess maybe we play differently.
But leaving that aside, I’m not swayed by the argument even taken as it is. The ASI matters because it is part of defining the race.

Look, the bottom line for me is this. The writeup is the conception of the race of people, and conceptually those ASIs matter. They tell us more than anything else, before ever sitting down and rolling any dice, how to conceptualise each people. Players can skim the two main dwarf subraces and grok what niche they fill, both as a race and in relation to eachother, and that is partly because the Mountain Dwarf gets +2 strength (where other subraces only get +1!) and Hill Dwarves get +1 Con.

 

[FrogReaver]

The more I think on it the more I like the notion of abstract attributes.

 

[Charlaquin]

I get it, but I still think it’s important to note that in general races tend to be stronger or more dexterous or etc than other races and that these differences have real impacts. (Even if PCs are treated as exceptional with stat abstractions).

I agree! I just think that using ability score adjustments to express those differences causes problems. I think there are better ways to do it, such as Strong Build and Halfling Nimbleness. These, to me, better actualize the physical differences, and don’t have the added drawback of punishing players who want to play against type with sub-par attack and damage rolls and/or save DCs and prepared spells. The strength score may have the name “strength” but it does significantly less to make the character actually feel stronger than Powerful Build, or Savage Attacks, or Natural Athlete. This is why I say ability scores are already “““dissociated mechanics.“““ They fail to meaningfully express the thing they say they represent, and mostly serve as meaningless to-hit and damage modifiers. I want my Goliaths to feel different from my halflings because they can do more stuff strong characters should be able to do, not because a number that the game informs me represents how strong the character is but really mostly just means he’s less likely to miss with melee weapons is higher.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just throwing this out there. Don't know if it will help or hinder anyone's points but here you go:

From Monster Manual:

View attachment 124076

View attachment 124077

View attachment 124078

True, although these aren't examples of PC's the stat blocks reflect the racial ASIs (or close to them) typical of the race-types in the PHB. The NPC section actually offers it as one way you can customize NPCs of different races.

shrug

This is helpful, yeah. It shows that PC race features are an option a DM can choose to add to an NPC stat block to further customize them, rather than something that is designed to be applied to NPCs.

 

[Charlaquin]

The existence of exceptions doesn’t disprove a trend. Also, pretty sure that bugbear MM writeup was written before the PC writeup,

Not sure how that’s relevant.

and I’m pretty sure it has higher strength and Dex than most humans of a similar CR,

Yes, because that’s how the stat block was designed, not because the PC race has a feature called ability score increase. You could remove that feature from the PC race, and the monster stat block wouldn’t have to change.

and IIRC it does have longer reach than other medium critters, though that solution to the bugbear’s long ape like arms may have come later.

Nah, they have 5 foot reach. It’s just one example though. NPC stat blocks are designed differently than PC stat blocks, and racial features are designed to apply to the latter.

Great, but let’s not pretend that what’s in the writeup is only there for PCs.

It is though, that’s how the rules work.

I didn’t ask what the rules are, however. “Not according to the rules” was not a remotely relevant reply.

I answered that I often do, so I don’t see what the problem is here.

The math doesn’t affect how the character plays? I guess maybe we play differently.

Not significantly. Two characters that are identical apart from having different strength scores will play identically apart from having different chances to hit and different damage with melee weapons. That’s what I mean when I say “exactly the same with different numbers.” The actions each character can perform, the effects they can have on the scenario, aren’t different, they just have different success rates with the same set of options.

But leaving that aside, I’m not swayed by the argument even taken as it is. The ASI matters because it is part of defining the race.

The things the abilities ostensibly represent define the race. How strong the character is, how tough, how fast, how learned, how perceptive, and how charming. Those things are not, however, well-reflected by the difference a +1 or +2 to an ability score makes in terms of the character’s actual capabilities.

Look, the bottom line for me is this. The writeup is the conception of the race of people, and conceptually those ASIs matter. They tell us more than anything else, before ever sitting down and rolling any dice, how to conceptualise each people. Players can skim the two main dwarf subraces and grok what niche they fill, both as a race and in relation to eachother, and that is partly because the Mountain Dwarf gets +2 strength (where other subraces only get +1!) and Hill Dwarves get +1 Con.

I simply can’t agree with you that ability scores are any good at serving that function.