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

[Guest 6801328]

Of course if one sees zero value in simulationist and evocative aspects of ASIs then I guess it could be a logical position.

That overly simplifies the equation. It's a cost:benefit analysis.

Racial ASIs: low evocative/gameplay benefit, high balance cost, near-zero design cost
Racial abilities: high evocative/gameplay benefit, low (but not zero) balance cost, moderate design cost (to do well)

So the "cost" in non-ASI racial abilities is that it takes more work to design well, but otherwise has higher benefits and lower costs. I think it's worth the investment.

(But, yeah, zero value in simulationism.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That overly simplifies the equation. It's a cost:benefit analysis.

Racial ASIs: low evocative/gameplay benefit, high balance cost*, near-zero design cost
Racial abilities: high evocative/gameplay benefit, low (but not zero) balance cost, moderate design cost (to do well)

(But, yeah, zero value in simulationism.)

Right. We merely value these things differently. I see racial ASIs as highly evocative and only having moderate balance cost. And I don't value balance highly to begin with.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

That is a great point and one I didn't take into consideration - past editions training us. Maybe too (at least for my case), age has tempered some of the need to build the best prototype. Maybe. The evidence I have says age has nothing to do with it. But you never know.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

If I may, he is not confused. How is being able to see in the dark not advantageous for a rogue? How is Menacing not built to be a better fighter or barbarian? How is Savage Attack not built for melee classes? How does Infernal Legacy not favor a Sorcerer? How does Mask of the Wild not favor a ranger or rogue? How does Dwarven Armor or Dwarven Weapon Training not favor a melee class? How is Halfling Nimbleness not synergistic with the ranger's Favored Enemy? These are all racial abilities, and they are not class neutral.

 

[DND_Reborn]

While I certainly agree with the thrust of your examples (you make a very valid point)...

How is being able to see in the dark not advantageous for a rogue?

This favors every class really.

How is Menacing not built to be a better fighter or barbarian?

Right, but over generalized. It favors any melee class.

How does Infernal Legacy not favor a Sorcerer?

This loosely favors CHA-based characters due to the DC for the Hellish Rebuke, but otherwise any class benefits from it IMO.

How does Mask of the Wild not favor a ranger or rogue?

I see your thinking, but again this can benefit any class (with the appropriate background) that take proficiency in Hide. A caster being able to hide from opponents in the right environment can easily find this useful for instance.

How does Dwarven Armor or Dwarven Weapon Training not favor a melee class?

It favors casters, not melee classes. Melee classes (for the most part) already get weapons and armor these racial traits give--so they are really redundant for melee classes. In particular, it mostly favors Bards, Sorcerers, Warlock, and Wizards since Clerics already have Light and Medium armor and Druids can't wear most Medium armors.

All that being said, I do agree some racial traits favor certain classes, but maybe not to the extent you are thinking?

 

[Charlaquin]

How does Dwarven Armor or Dwarven Weapon Training not favor a melee class?

Most melee classes already have proficiency in all weapons and armor, so it’s a wasted ability for them. This is mostly useful for classes that usually stay out of melee and don’t have these proficiencies.

 

[DND_Reborn]

As an aside, for people still following the thread and interested in the numbers for rolling 4d6-L 7 times and keeping the best 6, here is some more info:

Given the median and modes are identical, and align with rounding most of the averages, your typical scores would be:

16, 15, 13, 12, 11, 10

Now, this works out to a 34-point buy system, a bit higher than what I originally thought (by 1-2 points).

Anyway, those look like pretty good scores (removing racial ASIs as they are "baked in"), giving a PC a +3, +2, and two +1's.

An interesting thing came out of this for myself, personally. I've been using point-buy for all of 5E, and while this keeps a certain "balance" I find I typically use roughly the same scores or distribution for many of the characters I've made. I started to feel like there was a "sameyness" to them.

I think using this method I will roll scores again from now on. I've been playing around on AnyDice with the idea and see I am getting a much wider variety of scores (which I should, of course), and find I am enjoying that.

It's been a fun exercise. Hope it might help others who are interested in these ideas.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Right, but over generalized. It favors any melee class.

Agree with all your counter arguments but this one. How is Intimidation a melee skill? It’s a Charisma skill, so it favors classes that need Cha.

And this is how you “balance” racial abilities: if they do slightly favor some classes, you make sure there’s a mix.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And this is how you “balance” racial abilities: if they do slightly favor some classes, you make sure there’s a mix.

You mean like how mountain dwarf's strength bonus favours melee classes and armour training favours casters?

As a general principle I definitely agree with you, I just feel that ASIs can be part of that process.

 

[DND_Reborn]

How is Intimidation a melee skill? It’s a Charisma skill, so it favors classes that need Cha.

Pretty much every group I've seen or been part of has Intimidation available via Strength, as the Variant: Skills with Different Abilities supports. At our tables, we link different abilities to different skills all the time according to what makes the most sense.

But, as you say, it could be expanded even further beyond melee classes and include CHA-based classes as well. My point was more that it certainly is good for others besides fighters and barbarians.