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

[doctorbadwolf]

Even going by PC rules... a golaith can start with 10 strength. An average human (10 across the board) would have an 11 strength.

Bud, you didn't even read my post. (you also somehow have the wrong user in the quote text, but I'm guessing that is some sort of forum bug) I literally said "I’m saying that a lazy Goliath should be as strong as or stronger than a human of a physically intensive occupation."

You also misread the rest of my post, so I'll clarify. When I talk about a human and goliath commoner, I'm not talking about anything other than...a commoner. You know, the NPC block known as Commoner? That you can add racial traits to? That has a 10 in all stats? I really assumed that would be obvious, and I'm still not sure why it wasn't, but there it is. I'm clarifying simple stuff because someone wants to be pedantic.

Welp, I've lost all patience I had for pedantry since the days of the old wotc forums and inane arguments in the CharOp subforum, so, lets save time. Either we can discuss this without pedantry, or we can just not continue the discussion with eachother.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Nope, I did read it correctly the first time. There is a big difference between a world where everyone is not a min-maxer and a world where not everyone is a min-maxer. The world we live in is the latter, not the former.

Um...no. In normal everyday colloquial English "where everyone is not a min-maxer" is a perfectly normal way to refer to a world where min-maxing is not a universal trait.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think this is system issue then, it is a player issue.

I don’t blame the players for playing as the system incentives them to.

So the current tradeoff always leads to merciless min-maxing, but a marginally smaller tradeoff won't? This exact chance you want just happens to be the thing that makes min-maxers to stop caring about min-maxing? Sounds pretty questionable.

First of all, “merciless min-maxing” is hardly how I would describe choosing races that boost your class’s primary ability. Second of all, of course players will still care about character optimization. It’s just that there isn’t a clear-cut best option between Dwarven Armor Training and the Tabaxi’s dash ability like there is between both of those things and +2 to your class’s primary ability score. Which one a player finds better will depend on what they want to do with the character, whereas +2 to your class’s primary ability will always support what any character of that class wants to do.

Most of us live in it.

EDIT: Nevermind, I misunderstood what you were saying here.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, it may have been unclear. I totally meant: "where not everyone is a min-maxer."

Ahh, ok. In that case I retract my statement and apologize.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think it is just different players have different priorities in their styles and what they like. IME, players fall into certain groups:

1. I play only a few races (or just one!) regardless of class (we have one guy who nearly always wants to play dragonborn for instance).
2. I play certain races with certain classes, either for flavor or mechanical benefit (whichever the case might be...).
3. I mix-and-match races with classes with total abandon-- any combination can work for me!

Sure, people can shift a bit here or there, but that's how it seems more or less to me.

I wonder what the ratios of this are. Most people I know pick a class and look at he race with a racial bonus to their key ability and then pick whichever seems the most fun. Not hard-core optimization, but a general feeling that they need at least a 16 in their core stat to not be gimped during play.

This includes the majority of players who haven't played DnD before but have played a lot of video games - I suspect causation.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I wonder what the ratios of this are.

Well, if you can think of any other options, let me know, or I can go with just those three and make another poll.

a general feeling that they need at least a 16 in their core stat to not be gimped during play.

Think this is really evident at lower levels IME more so than at higher levels. That extra +1 early on carries a lot more weight than later.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

First of all, “merciless min-maxing” is hardly how I would describe choosing races that boost your class’s primary ability. Second of all, of course players will still care about character optimization. It’s just that there isn’t a clear-cut best option between Dwarven Armor Training and the Tabaxi’s dash ability like there is between both of those things and +2 to your class’s primary ability score. Which one a player finds better will depend on what they want to do with the character, whereas +2 to your class’s primary ability will always support what any character of that class wants to do.

Oh, c'mon, the armour training is clearly better for a wizard. That is at least equally obvious than the gnome int bonus being better than the dwarf armour training.

 

[MGibster]

Not to be glib, but that’s great for you. Sounds to me like removing racial ASIs wouldn’t have a big impact on race/class variety at your table. But it would at many others’ tables.

Come on, now. That was unnecessarily hostile. Doesn't the same sentiment apply to your position? It might be great for you if ASIs were removed, but it might have a negative impact on many other tables whose players would like to keep it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, c'mon, the armour training is clearly better for a wizard. That is at least equally obvious than the gnome int bonus being better than the dwarf armour training.

Only if you value defense over mobility. I’d actually prefer the Tabaxi wizard in most cases. Pair that speed doubling with haste? So juicy!

And that’s the thing, when the advantages you get from race aren’t so directly tied to your efficiency at fulfilling your class’s role, what advantage you choose over the others says a lot more about what you value. Even (perhaps especially) for a character optimizer.

 

[Charlaquin]

Come on, now. That was unnecessarily hostile. Doesn't the same sentiment apply to your position? It might be great for you if ASIs were removed, but it might have a negative impact on many other tables whose players would like to keep it.

I haven’t really seen arguments for how removing it would negatively impact other players’ tables. I’m sure that is related to my own biases, but mostly I’ve been seeing arguments against the validity of the improvements I perceive the change making.