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

[Maxperson]

All those other options certainly would make for a "hardy" race IMO. YMMV.

Being the generous DM that I am, I'd happily grant the request of any player that wanted a free level of exhaustion for their PC. I'm just not sure how constantly being tired makes for a more hardy PC.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It is the same. Why are dragons arbitrarily excluded from being a playable race?

Answer: because being a dragon would be too imbalanced.

The same reason I suggested excluding certain goliaths from our list of playable characters.

Then just don't allow goliaths at all. Either do it properly or not at all. In theory an unusually small and sickly dragon could be balanced but those are not allowed either as it would be both unsatisfactory to the players and paint a strange and misleading picture of the dragons.

 

[Maxperson]

You are trying for a simulationist perspective. Drop that and approach from a gamist perspective.

Character creation is not about making all possible characters, it becomes about making a party of characters that are roughly balanced to be able to play together and all contribute.

A lot of us aren't gamists and don't want to be.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Being the generous DM that I am, I'd happily grant the request of any player that wanted a free level of exhaustion for their PC. I'm just not sure how constantly being tired makes for a more hardy PC.

Luckily, I think you know what I meant.

 

[Maxperson]

Just to chime in on the whole +1 isn't much better thing. It's more that just +1 to hit and damage. For strength you also have my carrying capacity, ability to use certain items, better chances to break doors, etc. For Dex you get +1 ac, initiative, and Dex skills. For mental, you add to DCs if you also cast spells, get more spells available and so on.

 

[Scott Christian]

The problem is a perception one - that +1 bonus might not make a big difference in overall rates of success, but you will look at that number every time you roll for it. So Starting with, say, a +2 instead of a +3 is going to be obvious every time you attack.

It also means you get less feats, since you really don't want to have a +2 ability mods to hit at 6th level. This can be mitigated by spells or magic items, but most people build their characters assuming that no particular magic item will be available. If your dm definitely gives out +X weapons that might change things, but most dm's I've seen(or who post about it on any of the various fora) avoid such items as much as possible.

In other words, that number is small from everyone else's perspective, but not the player's.

So now it isn't statistical, it's a matter of perspective. If that is the case, there are about a hundred things that are just "perspective" that bother players. Should we change them all?
As far as floating bonuses, why change at all? Just make 15 or 16 the max after point buy and ASI adjustment. Whatever you want. Want stronger characters? Go with 16. Want weaker characters? Go with 15. It is literally that easy. Your problem about disparity is solved and this race always being chosen because they have the modifier is gone.

 

[Scott Christian]

Just to chime in on the whole +1 isn't much better thing. It's more that just +1 to hit and damage. For strength you also have my carrying capacity, ability to use certain items, better chances to break doors, etc. For Dex you get +1 ac, initiative, and Dex skills. For mental, you add to DCs if you also cast spells, get more spells available and so on.

Exactly. A +1 in initiative will make you lose 1 out of 20 initiatives you would have won. For carrying capacity it will allow you to carry 15 more pounds. For a spell DC it will make you lose 1 out of 20 castings you may have won (most of the time causing half damage for damage spells). It doesn't add up to enough of a concern to warrant changing the system. If those stats bother you that much, then I suggest never thinking about how much sway and tilt the DM could apply to any given encounter. (You have your +1 initiative but 70% of the creatures you fight are extremely agile and quick and have great initiatives.) (You love to cast faerie fire, but most of your opponents have an outstanding dex save.) (You could carry 15 more pounds but the DM rules that the bulkiness of the items doesn't allow for it to happen.)

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Move it all to class and background. Other games do it that way and work alright.

Better illustrates where your characters focus came from rather than something lame. Like, "Well I am a big brute, guess I will have to become a soldier rather than pursue my love of botany. Plus, wouldn't being a fighter/druid/cleric/wizard make you stronger, or wiser, or more intelligent just by virtue of always practicing and using skills dependent on those attributes more?

Why not: "Well, I am a big brute, but I'm going to pursue my love of botany anyway. It took more work, but I became a botanist anyway. And I'm still a big brute who can carry more gear on expeditions, as well as climb, dig, and fight better than my colleagues."

Celebrate diversity. That halfling barbarian might have 2% less chance to hit with their attacks compared to a goliath of the same points distribution, but they're also 5% less chance to be hit. They don't climb as well, but they sneak and balance better, as well as being more likely to act faster in a fight.
Just looking at these capabilities they're pretty close in effectiveness overall, but with each being better at different facets.

The reason a theoretical optimiser is less likely to create a halfling barbarian probably has more to do with 5e's size mechanics, which I do not believe anyone has suggested scrapping in this thread yet.

 

[jmartkdr2]

So now it isn't statistical, it's a matter of perspective. If that is the case, there are about a hundred things that are just "perspective" that bother players. Should we change them all?
As far as floating bonuses, why change at all? Just make 15 or 16 the max after point buy and ASI adjustment. Whatever you want. Want stronger characters? Go with 16. Want weaker characters? Go with 15. It is literally that easy. Your problem about disparity is solved and this race always being chosen because they have the modifier is gone.

As noted several times before, 'just raise the numbers' doesn't work with rolled stats, which is the most popular method of generating stats. Floating covers it nicely.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The reason a theoretical optimiser is less likely to create a halfling barbarian probably has more to do with 5e's size mechanics, which I do not believe anyone has suggested scrapping in this thread yet.

Though if one is serious about not wanting certain races to be better for certain builds then they absolutely should get rid of it. As you note it probably has bigger impact on some builds than a mere ability bonus.