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

[Micah Sweet]

It is a side effect of allowing wizards (in particular) to cast while wearing armor they are proficient in. In prior editions, the idea of the dwarven priest was popular due to armor, spellcasting, and the idea dwarves could be wise but weren't generally "smart". You still find dwarven clerics of course, but otherwise 5E tossed things on their head a bit.

Yeah, armored casters are just cool. Make.me feel like I'm playing Doctor Doom. I have a dwarven artificer you zaps his enemies and follows it up by a giant wrench to the head.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

See, you say you dislike "cookie cutter" builds, but that is exactly what Racial ASI's encourage.

Look, take two wizards, give them identical spell spellbooks. Give one a 16 INT and one a 14 INT. They are identical, except one has smaller numbers, they will miss more, their spells will be saved against more often, they have fewer spells prepared. It goes down the line.

Now take two wizards, give them identical spellbooks, and they both have an 16 INT. But one is a Dragonborn and the other is a Tabaxi. Now we have differences. The Tabaxi wizard is faster, they can get in and out of places, and they have a climb speed, they have proficiency in stealth and perception. The Dragonborn wizard has a fire breath, and resistance to fire damage (and well, that is it because dragonborn kind of suck).

The thing is though, both of those choices are mechanically inferior to picking a gnome. They are also the wizard with the 14 Int. And they are mechanically inferior to the wizard with 16 INT.

And, I know people love to post their "but I never do that" or "if you care about role-playing" stories, but the truth at my table is that I've never seen a Gnome or Halfling Fighter. Someone posted a week ago or so about DnD beyond data that showed that when talking about Humans, fighter's were more common than Paladins, but when talking about Tieflings, paladins were almost twice as likey compared to fighters.

This does have a real affect on people's choices. And if you don't like "cookie cutter builds" maybe instead of worrying if they have a +5 or a +4 to hit, you could see that making the ASI's floating means you are more likely going to see Tabaxi abilities or Aasimar abilities instead of Gnomes and Humans.

Yes, perhaps, but those characters will be pretty much the same than any other character of that class or subclass regardless of the race. Furthermore, I don't even think it is necessary for every race to be equally viable for every build. It is fine if halflings focus fighting using agility and nimbleness and orcs focus on overpowering their enemies by their physical might etc. Not everyone needs to be the same!

And the halfling wizard focuses on being worse as a wizard, because unlike fighters who can choose dex or strength, they only get INT. So, no halfling wizards.

Yes there will presumably be more race/class combinations. However, 2 things:

1. Every Barbarian will now have 16 str, 14 dex, 16 con - regardless of race. Repeat for every class. You’ve made a greater racial variation by reducing the starting stat variation. All you’ve done is trade one type of variation for another.

2. When stats considerations are removed - other features will dictate what’s best. You potentially could see fewer race/class combinations as a result of this change. That’s why I said it would presumably lead to more race/class combos - but it’s not at all a sure thing that it will.

1) Yes. That is fine. I mean, for those of you who claim that a +1 to hit doesn't matter, then why should actually getting that score matter? Every barbarian I've seen has already had a 16 Str and 16 Con, they have also all been half-orcs or goliaths. With this change, I'll see the same stats, but different races.

2) This is also fine. Combos are good. But this will make combos viable that really weren't viable before.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes there will presumably be more race/class combinations. However, 2 things:

1. Every Barbarian will now have 16 str, 14 dex, 16 con - regardless of race. Repeat for every class. You’ve made a greater racial variation by reducing the starting stat variation. All you’ve done is trade one type of variation for another.

Every Barbarian has 16 str, 14 Dex, 16 con now, they’re just all half-orcs, mountain dwarves, and humans (and Str/Con boosting races from whatever other supplements are available). If the bonuses were floating, you’d actually see halfling and elf and gnome barbarians that weren’t just meme builds. So, overall variety increased.

2. When stats considerations are removed - other features will dictate what’s best. You potentially could see fewer race/class combinations as a result of this change. That’s why I said it would presumably lead to more race/class combos - but it’s not at all a sure thing that it will.

But most of the non-ASI racial features are useful to characters of any class. Granted, there will always be players who want to optimize to the degree that they’ll choose a dwarf for that extra hp on their Barbarian or whatever, and that’s a valid play preference. But for the average player, removing racial ASIs will increase the number of builds they perceive as viable, not decrease it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

(A) I think you're underestimating the physical labor and strength that goes into farming in a pre-industrial society.
(B) They aren't there for that purpose though. They are for players only. NPCs have whatever stats the GM wants to give them. A GM can give a lazy goliath a strength of 3 (lower then a PC can get, even with rolling) or a strength of 22 (divine intervention!). The GM can leave powerful build or say "naw, this one is scrawny" and take it away. The rules for character creation are not applied to NPCs, and should not be taken to limit (or exalt) what NPCs can be.

A, I’m not. At all. I’m saying that a lazy Goliath should be as strong as or stronger than a human of a physically intensive occupation.

B, that is nonsense. By default, a Goliath commoner has 12 strength to the human’s 10. If a human of a given background would have 14, the Goliath counterpart has 16.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think that Dnd4vr is on to something. For me and my players, race is always second when we build a character. We do not optimize but the bonuses related to races are still very important to us as the bonuses pretty much defines our expectations for a race.

And it is these expectations that makes us make fun weird characters. From the optimizer to the out of the norm racial bonuses and expectations are the spices that makes making a race fun. Remove that, and they all become bland and tasteless.

I want to make a gnome barbarian? Of course it will be suboptimal. But it will surprising and refreshing and the surprise effect is there. The same for the dwarven wizard.

See, I don’t understand this because the ASIs don’t have a significant impact on how the character actually plays - by which I mean, the things they can do. The ability score only affects the numbers you add when doing the same things. So a gnome Barbarian does feel different than an orc Barbarian to me, but she feels different because she can talk to Tiny beasts and cast Minor Illusion and can’t get back up after being knocked to 0 or roll double-crits like the orc can, not because she adds +4 instead of +5 to attack rolls. But, boring though that numerical difference may be, the impact it has her contribution to the party in combat makes me hesitate to play the gnome, even if I want to play a Barbarian who can cast minor illusion and speak to Tiny beasts. Getting rid of that numerical discrepancy would free me up to choose my character’s race based on what I want them to be able to do instead of having to give that up to keep up with the system’s mathematical demands.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

See, you say you dislike "cookie cutter" builds, but that is exactly what Racial ASI's encourage.

No they don't.

Look, take two wizards, give them identical spell spellbooks. Give one a 16 INT and one a 14 INT. They are identical, except one has smaller numbers, they will miss more, their spells will be saved against more often, they have fewer spells prepared. It goes down the line.

Yes, but that's not the only difference. The Wizard with lower int got someting else. Sure, that something else may not be quite as good as those two points of int would be, but that will make the build different and will probably inform some other character building choices as well thus resulting a character that plays differently.

Now take two wizards, give them identical spellbooks, and they both have an 16 INT. But one is a Dragonborn and the other is a Tabaxi. Now we have differences. The Tabaxi wizard is faster, they can get in and out of places, and they have a climb speed, they have proficiency in stealth and perception. The Dragonborn wizard has a fire breath, and resistance to fire damage (and well, that is it because dragonborn kind of suck).

Yes, but in the same world where no one chooses to make wizard without racial int bonus, no one will make tabaxi or dragonborn wizards even in absence of ability bonuses. They will all be making mountain dwarf wizards as that now is the mechanically strongest choice.

On the other hand in the world where everyone is not a min-maxer, people can already make tabaxi and dragonborn wizards, and they are even more different than ones you describe as their abilities are different (which in turn might lead them choosing different skills and other build option making them even more different.)

 

[MGibster]

See, I don’t understand this because the ASIs don’t have a significant impact on how the character actually plays - by which I mean, the things they can do. The ability score only affects the numbers you add when doing the same things.

In my experience, player character race doesn't have a significant impact on how the actual character plays. In my current campaign, the PCs include a kenku cleric, gensai druid, gnome artficer, tiefling warlock, and a halfling fighter. With the exception of the kenku, who has certain language peculiarities when speaking, you could switch any of the other PC races around and the way they player their characters would not significantly change. In most adventures, especially published adventures, it doesn't matter if the PC showing up is a gnome, human, or half-orc because it typically won't have any affect on how the NPCs react.

 

[DND_Reborn]

See, you say you dislike "cookie cutter" builds, but that is exactly what Racial ASI's encourage.

Look, take two wizards, give them identical spell spellbooks. Give one a 16 INT and one a 14 INT. They are identical, except one has smaller numbers, they will miss more, their spells will be saved against more often, they have fewer spells prepared. It goes down the line.

Now take two wizards, give them identical spellbooks, and they both have an 16 INT. But one is a Dragonborn and the other is a Tabaxi. Now we have differences. The Tabaxi wizard is faster, they can get in and out of places, and they have a climb speed, they have proficiency in stealth and perception. The Dragonborn wizard has a fire breath, and resistance to fire damage (and well, that is it because dragonborn kind of suck).

The thing is though, both of those choices are mechanically inferior to picking a gnome. They are also the wizard with the 14 Int. And they are mechanically inferior to the wizard with 16 INT.

And, I know people love to post their "but I never do that" or "if you care about role-playing" stories, but the truth at my table is that I've never seen a Gnome or Halfling Fighter. Someone posted a week ago or so about DnD beyond data that showed that when talking about Humans, fighter's were more common than Paladins, but when talking about Tieflings, paladins were almost twice as likey compared to fighters.

This does have a real affect on people's choices. And if you don't like "cookie cutter builds" maybe instead of worrying if they have a +5 or a +4 to hit, you could see that making the ASI's floating means you are more likely going to see Tabaxi abilities or Aasimar abilities instead of Gnomes and Humans.



And the halfling wizard focuses on being worse as a wizard, because unlike fighters who can choose dex or strength, they only get INT. So, no halfling wizards.




1) Yes. That is fine. I mean, for those of you who claim that a +1 to hit doesn't matter, then why should actually getting that score matter? Every barbarian I've seen has already had a 16 Str and 16 Con, they have also all been half-orcs or goliaths. With this change, I'll see the same stats, but different races.

2) This is also fine. Combos are good. But this will make combos viable that really weren't viable before.

While you make some good points, there are aspects missing. First, sure a Dragonborn or Tabaxi Wizard might have INT 14 compared to a Gnome Wizard with INT 16, but those races make up for that in other ways those players find worth the one less spell, -1 to attacks/spell save DC. Depending on the spells you take, you might never have to worry much about making attack rolls or having a spell save DC made. Also, while those INTs are lower initially, others have already pointed out over the adventuring career all three are limited to INT 20.

I'll also add the downside of floating modifiers is people will often find a great race they love playing, and hardly ever branch out because now they can make a Dwarf Bard with +2 CHA, instead of maybe exploring a race that RAW offers CHA +2 instead. I think you are likely to see fewer races played by individuals even though they might be exploring other classes.

And FWIW, the first barbarian we had at our table was a Tiefling, the second a Dragonborn, and the third an High Elf.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Every Barbarian has 16 str, 14 Dex, 16 con now, they’re just all half-orcs, mountain dwarves, and humans (and Str/Con boosting races from whatever other supplements are available). If the bonuses were floating, you’d actually see halfling and elf and gnome barbarians that weren’t just meme builds. So, overall variety increased.

Man...I think I know why this discussion won't move forward.

Your experience of the game is absolutely the opposite of mine, and I'm guessing at least some of the others who don't want to get rid of racial ASIs. The only goliaths we have in my group's games are, an archer ranger, a sword-and-board fighter with plans to rebuild as an ancients paladin at an appropriate story point, a rogue that hasn't been played yet, and a warlock with a custom made Stars Patron. The last dwarf we had was a UA Mystic and then rebuilt as a Sorcerer when Mystic wasn't quite doing what he wanted it to do.

I've seen Talenta Halfling Totem Barbarians, and I've played Forest Gnome Paladins of the Ancients.

IME, by far most players just play what they want, and so goliath and dwarf wizards are noticeably different from elf and gnome wizards. We have like, one human at most per campaign, though, so I recognize that some aspects of my experience are very different from the norm.

Still, I don't think that most people feel stuck with the "optimized" combination.

I'm perfectly happy to have an alternative to the standard ASI setup, but I'm happy that the default will remain the same.

 

[Charlaquin]

No they don't.

Yes they do.

Yes, but that's not the only difference. The Wizard with lower int got someting else. Sure, that something else may not be quite as good as those two points of int would be, but that will make the build different and will probably inform some other character building choices as well thus resulting a character that plays differently.

For most of the players I’ve known, that tradeoff is almost never worth it.

Yes, but in the same world where no one chooses to make wizard without racial int bonus, no one will make tabaxi or dragonborn wizards even in absence of ability bonuses. They will all be making mountain dwarf wizards as that now is the mechanically strongest choice.

Except that the tradeoff between medium armor proficiency or a climb speed and the ability to double your speed on a turn is not so clear-cut as the tradeoff between either of those things and +2 Int. Which one you pick will be much more a question of what you value and what you want your character to be able to do instead of a question of if you’re willing to accept being sub-par at your class’s role in exchange for an ability unrelated to your class’s role.

On the other hand in the world where everyone is not a min-maxer, people can already make tabaxi and dragonborn wizards, and they are even more different than ones you describe as their abilities are different (which in turn might lead them choosing different skills and other build option making them even more different.)

Ain’t no such world.