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

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm back! I know, you're so excited.

Been thinking about this off-line, and have the following thoughts about some of the arguments being used:

1. Both sides have been trying to play it both ways on the value of the ASI. That is, that +2 to a primary stat is important to one's own argument, but the other side is making too big a deal out of it. So that argument is a dead-end and should be dropped.
2. As mentioned previously, "If you are worried about optimizers, don't play with them" is analogous to "If you're worried about a super-strong gnome, ask your table not to do that." So toss both those arguments.
3. The argument that most campaigns don't go past level 10, thus races without an ASI will never be as strong/smart/quick/charming as races that have them, and thus orc PCs really are stronger than gnome PCs is in conflict with the argument that a floating ASI is "dissociative" because it makes it possible that a gnome will be strong, regardless of whether or not you actually play with a gnome who puts his ASI there. Either the possibilities inherent in the rules are dissociative, regardless of whether or not the dissociative possibility is encountered at the table, or they are not. Can't have it both ways.
4. Expanding on #3 above, it currently is possible for all races to achieve a 20 in any attribute. So I find the position that allowing races to start out with equal scores would suddenly become dissociative to be highly...unconvincing. If there were also racial maximums (which I'm not in favor of) I would see the argument. But there aren't.
5. Regarding simulationism, if this were really simulationist, goliaths would have +6 strength (at least?) over halflings, not that piddling +2, that can disappear while leveling. So it's not really simulationist; it's more of a symbolic nod to simulationism in earlier editions.
6. Points 4 and 5 in turn make me wonder if the passionate defense of racial ASIs has less to do with, well, actual game impact, and is really just more of an emotional line in the sand. For somebody who strongly believes that attribute scores should reflect the lore differences the current system has got to be entirely unsatisfactory. It doesn't really accomplish that goal at all. And to get rid of that last, vestigal remnant of racial differences would be a blow, even if the effect at the table would be essentially invisible. If this is going on, I am sympathetic. I'm bummed that Paladins don't have to be Lawful Good and have really high prerequisites (even if that's terrible game design) so I get it.
7. And, finally, I have to wonder if for some people (not everybody) the anti-racial-ASI thing feels like political correctness run amok. First they get rid of gender differences, and now they want to get rid of racial differences!?!?! What's next? Re-education camps? This occurs to me because I've been continually bewildered by all the statements to the effect of "Without racial ASIs we are all just playing humans with masks". WTF? As somebody who finds the non-ASI racial abilities to be more flavorful and evocative, that has made no sense to me. So I gotta wonder if there's some other agenda lurking underneath those claims. (Plus there's the assumption, that keeps reappearing, that those of us opposed to racial ASIs must be opposed to all racial abilities, when in fact for many of us the opposite is true; we want more non-ASI racial abilities.)

Welcome back!

1.) I think Charlaquin explained well what's going on here.

2.) Fine.

3 & 4.) Well, I definitely would like to have racial maximums. But less likely the situation is to actually come up, less relevant it is in practice. So the situation working sensibly on the most played levels is better than it not working sensibly at all. Furthermore, as I have alraady said many times, in my view physical realism matters more in low levels where the characters are more akin ral people and less on higher levels where they are more akin superheroes.

5 & 6). It indeed is a compromise situation. This is common thing in game design. You truncate the difference for balance reasons, but the difference still exists, albeit in lesser degree than would be 'realistic.' It is not a terrible situation and indeed better than nothing. And to some degree it is necessary though I think it already is too aggressively done. But yeah, pointing out that the system already doesn't perfectly do what I want (I know) in no way is an argument for making the situation worse!

7.) No. (Unless the argument is made that fictional species having different capabilities is automatically racist. I've seen some people made such a claim, but it has not been common line of arguing in this thread.) As for getting rid of other racial features, if the goal is to make all races equally attractive for all classes, then logically it would follow that many of the features should be pruned too, as they favour certain classes. To me it is a tad perplexing that the people who want to get rid of the ASIs for said reason do not see this, and makes their argument seem illogical.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

If anyone is comfortable rolling stats which leaves possibilities like 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8 or 16, 16, 17 17, 18, 18, then they either:
A) do not care about 5%, but like the initial thrill of rolling (it is very fun)
B) hope to have a super build, in which case, they won't be happy with anything other than something much better than the point buy spread
C) it is possible they have not thought about the math or choose to not understand it

 

[Scott Christian]

This seems to be because your thinking on this is incredibly narrow.

A +1 magic item? Unless you are a warlock, there are no +1 magic items that give an increase to your spell DC. There are no magic items that let you prepare +1 spells. Additionally, you are assuming the weaker player gets a magic item, and the stronger one doesn't. If it is the reverse, then the difference rises. If they both get a magic item, then the difference stays static. Finally, the game does not assume magic items, and neither do a lot of players. I very often do not give out items with bonuses, instead giving out items with abilities. So the 5% stays.

Multi-Attack? I assume you mean extra attack. So, if we are again talking about two people with the same build, then they both got Extra attack, so I have no idea why you think that removes the difference. Also, casters don't get extra attack as a general rule, so the wizard or cleric does not benefit from this at all.

any host of feats? You mean you took a feat or an ASI? Great, that means the other person did too. So, unless they chose a feat that does not give any bump, and you chose a half-feat (of which there is at least one of each score if you don't mind bending your concept a little) then you are behind. And, like I showed. If both of you increase your score? You are behind. If they pick a feat and you just increase your score, you are behind. The best scenario is them taking a feat that does not benefit the build (giving them versatility) and you have a perfect half-feat to increase your score and get a useful ability. But, feats are so variable it is hard to measure the exact impact.

Again, thank you for making my point. If it is that easy for the DM to swing the odds, then why are you worried about 5%? What if the stronger character does get a +2 sword, and you don't. And they were 5% stronger to begin with. Has the DM just ruined the game?
As for feats, you made my point. What if that stronger person chooses something not optimal? Is that allowed? Is that fighter allowed to take the Mobile feat because they want to move faster, thus allowing the weaker person to catch up in strength? What if that fighter took Alert, or heaven forbid, Linguist? I do not know the make up of your table, but I can assure you there are plenty of people out there that don't always choose the optimal feat. Heck, some don't even put their ASI in optimal stats, but instead choose to become more charismatic or intelligent, even when it doesn't serve their combat statistics. Because in the end, that is all this discussion is about.

If the cleric blessed you, then they are buffing you, and that buff would be more powerful if you had better scores... I don't even... ah wait. The rogue gets sneak attack and now your damage isn't better? I see what happened here.


I'm not comparing the Fighter to the Rogue. Or the Wizard to the Bard. I'm comparing them to themselves. I'm comparing a Rogue with 14 Dex to a Rogue with 16 Dex. So, that sneak attack, both builds got it, in the exact same amount, at the exact same time. 14 Dex rogue is still behind 16 Dex rogue. Now sure, maybe it is less obvious if there aren't two rogues at the table, but everyone can do this basic math, and in my expeirence, players with 14's in their main stat are noticeably less effective. I've run a few different character's (player and DM) where this occurred and it was always noticeable.

You are spot on. I was comparing two different things. Sorry, logic escaped me for the moment.

 

[Maxperson]

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.)

Yep. I totally get both sides of the argument. I find myself wanting to get that +1, but then catching myself, because you don't NEED it to do very well in 5e. Past editions have conditioned us to feel the need to eek out every + we can get, but 5e scaled that back and it takes effort to go against the old ways.

 

[Maxperson]

IMO, When it comes to character creation You already are.

You'll looking at it from only one side, though. Yes, the rules portion of making a character is gamist. However, it's ALSO world building as you are creating a character that is a part of the world, narrativist if you create a background that will be narrated to the others in the group, and simulationist if you first come up with your character concept and then find the rules needed to simulate that concept. You can make your character in a purely gamist fashion, but you don't have to.

That's why I absolutely adored the bloat of 3e. Yes, you could break the game if you went gamist and tried. But if you didn't care about that, feats, classes and prestige classes allowed you to create almost any concept you could imagine. 5e is sorely lacking here. To make many concepts you have to kludge in a class/subclass that really doesn't fit.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, I think I’m going to try this in place of racial ASIs in my next campaign. Though, my players generally don’t like rolling and most of them will probably just take the array.

My group does a variant of 4d6-L. We have two stats that you can assign 5d6-2L, two at 4d6-L, and two at straight 3d6. It might work well if you assign those die rolls by racial strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Charlaquin]

My group does a variant of 4d6-L. We have two stats that you can assign 5d6-2L, two at 4d6-L, and two at straight 3d6. It might work well if you assign those die rolls by racial strengths and weaknesses.

Oh, that’s neat!

 

[Guest 6801328]

As for getting rid of other racial features, if the goal is to make all races equally attractive for all classes, then logically it would follow that many of the features should be pruned too, as they favour certain classes. To me it is a tad perplexing that the people who want to get rid of the ASIs for said reason do not see this, and makes their argument seem illogical.

And, likewise, I find it quite perplexing that despite all the times it has been explained that the goal is to reduce class synergy, and that non-ASI racial abilities tend to be more class-neutral, you still seem confused by this.

 

[Charlaquin]

My group does a variant of 4d6-L. We have two stats that you can assign 5d6-2L, two at 4d6-L, and two at straight 3d6. It might work well if you assign those die rolls by racial strengths and weaknesses.

After putting more thought into this, I actually like it quite a lot. It creates those tendencies that the “““Simulationist””” crowd wants - a Goliath rolling 5d6k3 for Strength will have a much better chance at a high Strength score than a halfling rolling straight 3d6 for it - while still leaving room for the possibility of an exceptionally strong halfling or an exceptionally weak Goliath. I think for the right campaign, it would be a lot of fun to first choose your race, then roll your stats in order with each race instructing you to roll 5d6k3 on two scores, straight 3d6 on one score, and 4d6k3 on the rest, then choose a class to suit the stats you rolled. It definitely wouldn’t be what I’d want the standard rules to be, but I’d absolutely try it for a lark.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And, likewise, I find it quite perplexing that despite all the times it has been explained that the goal is to reduce class synergy, and that non-ASI racial abilities tend to be more class-neutral, you still seem confused by this.

It is debatable how much it would even reduce the synergy and how much it would merely change which races synergise with which classes. It might reduce it somewhat but I suspect you're overestimating the impact. To me it just seems like a big sacrifice that doesn't even properly achieve its goal. Of course if one sees zero value in simulationist and evocative aspects of ASIs then I guess it could be a logical position.