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

[Guest 6801328]

Yeah, I think we’ve said all that’s worth saying on this subject by now and are just reiterating the same points.

Yeah, I think we’ve said all that’s worth saying on this subject by now and are just reiterating the same points.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, I think we’ve said all that’s worth saying on this subject by now and are just reiterating the same points.

But have you considered that everything worth saying on the subject might have been said at this point, and that what we’re doing now might be reiterating the same points?

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, I think we’ve said all that’s worth saying on this subject by now and are just reiterating the same points.

But have you considered that everything worth saying on the subject might have been said at this point, and that what we’re doing now might be reiterating the same points?

I think you should both consider the notion that everything may have been said at this point, and that you're now just reiterating the same points. Someone had to say it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think you should both consider the notion that everything may have been said at this point, and that you're now just reiterating the same points. Someone had to say it.

You just saying that because you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that everything worth saying has been said at this point, and now everyone is just reiterating the same points.

I just tell it like it is.

 

[CleverNickName]

Look, I'm just saying what I've already said. Again.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think you should both consider the notion that everything may have been said at this point, and that you're now just reiterating the same points. Someone had to say it.

Hmm... Good point.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Also don’t most of us agree that it’s good for both options to exist?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Also don’t most of us agree that it’s good for both options to exist?

yes!

One should exist in official books. The other should exist in the house rules of a few misguided, depraved souls.

I won’t say which is which.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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

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.

Unless the sole difference is one player rolled luckier than the other, that higher stat had a trade-off. The other player chose to have different abilities and a better bonus elsewhere, because they valued that ability score or capabilities more than the player who went for the Dex-optimised race.

Then you have to drop everything. Because Variant Humans can be as (Strong/Graceful/Charismatic/Intelligent/Wise/Perceptive/Tough) as any +2 race.

Dwarves are exceptionally tough... as long as you don't count tough humans
Elves are exceptionally graceful... as long as you don't count graceful humans
Gnomes are exceptionally smart.... as long as you don't count smart humans.

So, if that is an issue for you, then you have to drop every single race right now, because that is the current state of the game.

Not a problem as I see it: It fits with the concept that humans are capable of excelling in a thing if they really put their mind to it.
A human who goes all-out for a high intelligence: picking Variant human, placing a floating bonus in Int, picking a +1 Int half feat can just match the intelligence of a gnome who is that intelligent - just by virtue of being a gnome.

Me too. But if we remove bonuses then something must be done to differentiate the different races. 5ed did a good job but sometimes, it is not entirely logical. That is why I would prefer some races to excede the maximum of 18 and not limit them to a 16.

I'm not a fan of racial maximums: only a vanishingly small part of the populace are affected by them. I think racial ASIs are a better implementation of distinguishing the broad strokes of a race because it pushes the bell curve of the overall population. I feel that most half-orc should be stronger than most halflings. I don't really have an issue with that once-a-millenium legendary halfling hero being as strong as a once-a-generation half-orc hero.

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.

Leaving aside the rather distasteful insinuations that you're making about people who don't agree with you, why do you believe that they find the current system that they want to continue to use unsatisfactory? How do you presume they believe it doesn't accomplish their goal.

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.)

Again, leaving aside the slurs equating a section of the people who don't think as you do to nothing but knee-jerk reactionaries, I think it is because everyone draws their line on a different place on this spectrum.

Personally, I wouldn't think that political correctness is an issue. No one reasonable has brought up gender stat differences, and I don't think that anyone would want to push verisimilitude that far. I also think that we're all operating under the assumption that the unfortunate language linking some game races with real-life ethnic demographics is going to be removed, so that racial ASIs have no reflection upon them.

There have been an unpleasant few who try to paint their opponent's positions as extremes, from "without racial ASIs we are all just playing humans with masks" to "they're just arguing out of emotion due to fear of change." However there has also been a lot of acceptance, and listening to another's opinion and accepting it as valid, even if it doesn't change their own. It has been interesting, and sparked creation of some engaging suggestions.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It doesn't alter the argument. Yes, halflings can learn some of those things by choosing certain feats or classes. Halflings can also raise any ability via point buy and later raise them via feats/ASIs gained from levelling. But they don't get to swap their 'Halfling Nimbleness' to a wizard cantrip or hammer proficiency. So yeah, thanks for strengthening my point.

But, it is patently less ridiculous than breathing fire, which only a single race can do, because they are part dragon.

And, presented as something more like learning a wizard cantrip, or gaining hammer proficiency, doesn't it seem far more reasonable of a thing?

Hilarious story. I am confused how you returned it. Was it a store or treasure horde? But again, this goes back to the DM's control. Yes, your character didn't get the optimal "thingy." But a DM can let that shield shine as bright as its smile. Maybe few levels from then you find out the faces all denote different types of damage when it blocks something? That's pretty strong. I do not know or have ever played with anyone that is so much of a rules lawyer that the magic items are only those rolled within the books. But it is obvious your group wants optimal.

I appreciate what your saying, but the "they" in your "they build a different character" is not the same as "they" the people who play D&D. Again, if you are a min/maxer I get it. And just like you have said something repeatedly, I have said something repeatedly as well about min/maxers: the only time they want a rule changed is when they are unable to min/max a better character. That is the only reason they ever really argue for a rule change. ASI is blocking a group, not from role playing in a role playing game, but from roll playing a stronger character in a role playing game.

Two things

1) It was the forge where these items were made, and we were at the end of the campaign. I already had a magic shield that gave me advantage on perception and initiative. I was not going to use a shield that was magic but did nothing but spray paint a new face on it. Sure, your version could have been an interesting choice, but that is not the item I got. Which was the point. If you would have changed the item to match the power level, then you agree with me that treasure tends to be balanced for the party, not imbalanced.

2) The bolded and underlined sections are wrong. Not only are they wrong, they are dismissive, which makes me worry for the rest of your post. Because if you believe that people who have this issue don't even play the game, then you will never believe it is an issue, and we can never have a discussion about it.

These are great points and true. But, who rolls stealth more in a game? The rogue? Other classes? Odds are, in a regular game, the rogue. So you are correct, many of these racial traits are useful for everyone, but they are more useful for some than others. Which is also true of ASI's. But my guess is a min/maxer will eventually just want a list of racial traits that everyone gets to choose from - because it makes their character better.

There have been repeated attempts to say that changing racial ASI's is just "kicking the can" down to racial traits. But, that has been denied fairly roundly.

But sure, getting an extra die of damage on a crit is more useful for a class that crits more, I won't deny that. But, "doesn't die when they hit 0 hp" is universally useful no matter what class you are. So, as long as there is a mix, then it shouldn't matter.

Also, I see you are equating this with min/max again. Which is worrying.

Yes. You are correct. They sacrificed to have the character concept they wanted. Again, in a role playing game. 5% matters very little. But it can matter a lot in someone 's head. I get this. But it matters a whole lot more to people who frame their game around optimizing their characters combat performance.

It is my choice to not change one of the pillars of this role playing game just so someone can squeeze out an extra 5% because they view it as important. It is, in my opinion, much better to let new players make tropes. And watch the ones that choose to go against the trope be recognized as different. Those types of dynamics make for fun role playing tables. (Min/Maxers can have their fun too, but let them make their own house rules instead of changing a pillar of the game.)

What pillar of the game is character creation? Generally the three pillars are combat, exploration, social. Is "character creation" the fourth pillar?

Snark aside, you realize that our position is that removing Racial ASI's increases Roleplay, right?

If there is truly a min/max player at the table, then they don't want to play a Half-Orc wizard. They don't care about role-playing, so they are just fine with doing Half-Orc barbarian after half-orc barbarian.

It is the player who wonders what an Elf Barbarian would look like that has the problem. They want a different story, but they are getting penalized for it. And you can argue and argue that it is a small penalty, and worth it for their concept, and if they were true DnD players they wouldn't care.... but the expeirence at the table, and the numbers from DnD Beyond, and the accounts of other DMs are all saying that, yes, people do care.

And it isn't the Min/maxxers who don't care about roleplaying that care. They don't care about concept anyways, so switching to another race never bothers them. And it isn't the improv actors who could care less what is on their sheet who care, they don't care about their scores anyways.

But, there are those of us in the middle, who look at all these people who don't care, and say, hey, can we make it a little easier for us, while you guys just keep doing your thing?

I'm sorry if that was vague. I can't stand it when people write all cryptically, and here I am doing it. My apologies.

I feel like your thesis of floating ASI's would actually make all the characters of a same class feel more like one another. This would cause the initial half-orc wizard to not feel special, because they are just like elf wizard or the halfling wizard. So while you might get more elf fighters, what you really get is more elf fighters because they are the same as a human or half-orc fighter.

My analogy is trying to say, sometimes the road less travelled is less travelled for a reason - because it's all crooked and longer. But, it doesn't make it any less fun or special to travel down, it just takes longer to get there.

Dang it! I did it again! Urgh!

Classes that are not as good are fun for many to play because they excel at things that are unexpected, while only being good at the thing they are supposed to be great at. That is a lot of fun for many of the players I know. Changing the ASI takes away that rarity and makes it the same percent as everything else.

Sorry if it is long winded. But that is what I mean. Thanks for listening.

But

1) +5% is the most boring difference between characters you can possibly have

2) Racial traits and roleplaying are still a thing, and you can still make them very different, they won't feel the same at all. Speaking as someone who has seen multiple barbarians with starting strength of 16. They were all still different characters.

3) Why do you want the difference between them to be that they are worse at their job? "My elf fighter is special, because he is less effective as a fighter, unlike that human fighter who is effective at his job" What a wonderful fantasy to explore for six months to a year. I'm sure that person will have blast.

Or alternatively, they could be effective (like, by being a dex fighter which elves are good at) and play up the differences between elven culture, thought and general roleplaying.