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

[DND_Reborn]

The beauty of discussion is to provide reasons and not just assertions.

It really wasn't something I was planning to discuss. You either see the reasons for yourself or don't; and there are too many races for me to bother stating my reasons for each one.

 

[FrogReaver]

It really wasn't something I was planning to discuss. You either see the reasons for yourself or don't; and there are too many races for me to bother stating my reasons for each one.

Well alrighty then.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But in that case, they’d likely want to play a class that does that thing, rather than a wizard (probably a fighter or a barbarian).

I really don't like this sort of comment...
No. The hypothetical player clearly wants to play a dwarf wizard, or a wizard that is tougher and more heavily armored than other wizards, or dwarf wizard wouldn't be what they're looking at.

And it's totally valid if some people believe that it's ok or even good for the game to be designed that way. (I disagree, but it's an entirely subjective point.)

What I find totally bizarre is that so many people seem to think:
a) The synergy, or lack thereof, between racial attribute bonuses and classes aren't enough that anybody should be dissuaded from picking the combination that appeals to them
b) And yet those bonuses are so important that their absence, or even floating bonuses, would feel "like playing a human with a mask".

Maybe the answer is to make attributes a complex number (that is, with both real and imaginary components). So your strength might be 16,3i. The imaginary component comes from your race, and isn't actually used for any mechanics, so it can be really big to differentiate pretty-strong Dwarves (2i) from crazy-strong Goliaths (6i). But it's RIGHT THERE ON YOUR CHARACTER sheet, so you can feel like you're mighty. Or superhumanly quick. Or brilliant. Or whatever.

You've missed the point, here.

The dwarf is heartier than the elf. That's a real thing that actually exists in the game as you play it. It is very minor, but it's there, and it helps inform the characters created. That is completely different from "you're stronger than a human of the same background who puts the same work into strength" but doesn't actually do anything at all.

Like...what I at least am saying, is that the ability score bonuses help inform what the norms for that race are, in a way that feels real because it has an actual consequence, and it does so in the simplest way possible. Getting rid of that means either that the orc is no longer stronger (ie, has an easier time becoming very strong) than the human, or is stronger but in a noticeably more complex way that is suitable only for variant rules.

Oh. Maybe. I thought we had straightened that out.

What I'm arguing for (and I think @Charlaquin agrees) is to aim for features that minimize synergy with specific classes.

IMO, in order for features that provide mechanical distinction, they will unavoidably favor some classes over others.

Funny, I do agree that features are more complex, but not during character creation

They are objectively more complex during character creation. Maybe my meaning wasn't clear, though, based on your reply.

So, what I'm saying is that replacing ASI bumps with descriptive features makes choosing between races, and understanding how the choice of race effects the total character, is more complex than the ASI bumps.

 

[Maxperson]

Locked, no, but I've also yet to get really exasperated with @Maxperson and do something rash that earns me a thread ban.

Well, hopefully you won't do something that earns you that ban.

I do have a question, though. What was the point of saying that you were waiting for me to respond to your post, and then not responding to me when I did.

 

[jmartkdr2]

It really wasn't something I was planning to discuss. You either see the reasons for yourself or don't; and there are too many races for me to bother stating my reasons for each one.

It's also massively affected by what you see players actually do - and since none of us have played in a statistically significant number of games, all of our experiences are equally valid for making generalizations*.

If all you ever see is gnome wizards and half-orc barbarians, then floating ASI's seem like a good thing. If you're already seeing a bunch of dwarf wizards and halfling warlocks, then floating ASI's seem like they'd reduce variety by removing the opportunity cost. And those impressions are equally correct.

So if the problem you're trying to solve is "players always pick the same race/class combos," you still need to zero in on which combos they're favoring and why before finding a workable solution.

*zero equaling zero... although DnDBeynd might have some useful data.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So don't make a strong halfling?

And play with people who share your aesthetics and won't make strong halflings?

Or is it just the possibility of a strong halfling lurking in the rules that would cause the disassociation for you?

Ugh.

Look, I am far from a proponent of "rules as physics", but the stats of the races are not "just there for PCs" as some folks claim. They represent what the race is like. Orc PCs aren't just strong, they're from a people that is strong.

That matters. If it didn't, this conversation wouldn't even be happening, because it started because some folks don't want some races to be stronger than humans as a race. The "race shouldn't make you better at a class" is a branch of that conversation that is happening within the dnd community at large.

The orc writeup gives orcs greater strength. The rules for PCs allow a halfling to surpass what normal halflings can acheive and become just as strong as an also exceptional orc, but orcs and halflings almost never have 20 in any stat, because they aren't PCs or major characters in a campaign. For the vast majority of NPCs, the stats range from 8 to about 14 at most, never getting close to the PC maximum. WHich, btw, only applies to PCs! NPCs can have a 38 Strength is that is what makes sense to an adventure writer or DM, but vanishingly few people in the default, normal, dnd world have stats comperable to the PCs.

For many of us, the world building of the lore of orcs and halflings matters, and the bonuses are part of that.

Yes, an exceptional Halfling can reach the same maximum as an exceptional Orc, in strength. That maximum only exists to keep PC numbers in check, and only applies to PCs, whereas the +2 for being an Orc is part of the player's understanding of Orcs in the world.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's also massively affected by what you see players actually do - and since none of us have played in a statistically significant number of games, all of our experiences are equally valid for making generalizations*.

This wasn't a point about collective data or experiences, it was a "game to name the races that with floating would make good wizards" (or some such). With floating INT +2 and/or CON, I can imagine good argument for any race as it then becomes what other aspects makes that sort of wizard good to an individual.

And as far as this thread is concerned, I (personally) am not really trying to solve any problems with combos or anything else. I was just looking to see if given the options presented in the poll, is there a clear favorite for changing the RAW and if there is, what is it.

FWIW, I see we just hit voter #135 and I am hoping for 150 if we can reach it!

 

[Charlaquin]

No, it is not that at all. I merely recognise as a real advantage that should not be ignored when assessing the balance.

All race abilities are real advantages that should not be ignored when assessing balance. How you evaluate them depends on what you value, which may vary from character to character depending on what you want to do with the character. But an increase to your class’s primary ability score has a measurably greater impact than most of not all other racial features. Obviously different players’ opinions will vary on exactly how much they value what, but overall primary ability has the single greatest impact.

If you try to honestly compare how the races are balanced against each other, you simply cannot ignore half of their capabilities and fixate on one aspect.

I’m not ignoring them, I’m recognizing the disproportionate impact of ability score increases.

This is just about your prefrences and has really nothing to do with assessing balance. You may prefer extra casting power some will prefer utility and I guess some could prefer the tabaxi mobility. These are not somehow fundamentally different things, they all are things that affect character's capabilities. By removing some of them (ability bonuses) from the equation, you just change the balance calculus and not removing it.

And that you feel it is more interesting to choose based on features alone is, well, that is just your preference and others feel differently.

Of course it’s my preference. I thought that went without saying?

 

[jmartkdr2]

This wasn't a point about collective data or experiences, it was a "game to name the races that with floating would make good wizards" (or some such). With floating INT +2 and/or CON, I can imagine good argument for any race as it then becomes what other aspects makes that sort of wizard good to an individual.

At that point you have to find a way to compare Trance to Halfling Luck and say which is better for wizards - which is going to be hugely dm dependent (basically: how often do you need to make nighttime perception checks) as well as requiring more judgement calls, which is why it immediately dissolves to talking past each other or just shrugging and moving on. Which one works best for my Monday night game has no bearing on anyone else here but me.

But hey, if we're sharing anecdata: my overall experience is that players just want to hit the minimums, and they tend to think of 16 in their main stat (in this case intelligence) as the minimum, so with floating modifiers any race is 'good enough', so people would pick based on flavor/art reasons rather than mechanical ones. Which is probably why I've had such good experiences with the rule.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But hey, if we're sharing anecdata: my overall experience is that players just want to hit the minimums, and they tend to think of 16 in their main stat (in this case intelligence) as the minimum, so with floating modifiers any race is 'good enough', so people would pick based on flavor/art reasons rather than mechanical ones. Which is probably why I've had such good experiences with the rule.

Exactly.