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

[Crimson Longinus]

Because really what we'd be looking at is mostly just that one attribute being the same, right? Sure, every Barbarian starts with a 16 or 17 Strength. But then they'll have varying Dex scores depending on their armor plan. Some will dump Cha, but some will want it for Intimidation. Some will have a wily, seasoned warrior in mind and will put points in Int or Wis; some will dump those, opting for the "dumb brute" build.

But, yeah, "cookie cutter" because they start with a 16 or 17 in Strength. Cry me a river.

The different ability bonuses probably inform the build more than the mere amount of the points. Like it is unlikely that one will build a halfling warrior exactly the same than orc warrior, except the halfling has two points less Str and two points more Dex. No, that they can't get the best strength and do get a nice dex bonus will mean that they're far more likely to focus on dex based builds thus the characters will end up looking radically different. When you can't just max your main stat and say 'job's a good 'un' it directs you to seek other routes to do things, taking advantage of things that are the thematic niche of your race. Now whether one considers scores pushing certain races towards certain types of builds is a feature or a bug is a matter of opinion. You probably see it is a bug, I see it is a feature.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This just happened. I DM most of the time, but every so often one of the guys gives me a break and DMs for a while. We just rolled up characters last week and my stats for my Elven Bladedancer are S:13, D:20, C:15, I:17, W:14, and CH:11. My dice were on fire. Now in full disclosure, we do use a variant where you get to pick two stats to roll 5d6-2L, two stats at 4d6-L, and two stats at 3d6. Even so, I rolled VERY well.

That said, growth to me is more about the character than the stats, so I disagree with you about zero growth.

In our main game one player rolled 17, 16, 17, 14, 14, 13 using 4d6-L, so yeah sometimes dice just BURN!

Of course characters are more than just stats, but for myself to start with maxed out 20 in my main ability seems undesirable as it is one less place to grow.

 

[Scott Christian]

The thread that will not die. ("How do you kill that which has no life?")

Anyway, I've solved it.

You can either leave now, confident and content that it all has been resolved, or read on and become enlightened.

First, from the point of view of not having to choose between optimization and story, the problem that's bigger than racial ASIs is variant humans and their free feat. +2/+1 where you don't get to assign it, vs. floating +1/+1 and a feat? I go for the latter almost every time.

So here are my design goals:

• Freedom, or as much as possible, from an optimization point of view, to choose whatever race you want.
• Preserve the flavor/lore of some races being faster, stronger, smarter, whatever.
• Preserve the flavor of humans being the most versatile.

Here it is:

• Non-humans get +1/+1, with one assigned and one floating. Humans get +1 to all stats.
• Everybody also gets one feat. Each non-human race gets a list of feats they can choose from (for this free feat only; at higher levels they get the full list) some of which include a +1 bonus to their favored stats. I.e., half-orcs might have feats that give +1 to Str or Con, plus some feats that don't give any bonuses. Humans get to pick from all the lists. (Note: we'll probably have to come up with some more feats.)
• Non-humans still get their other racial features (plus maybe some new ones? They have to add up to being a good trade-off for +1 to your four least important stats.)

The result is that if you want to optimize for an archetypical class (e.g. halfling rogue) you can start with a 17 in your primary stat; otherwise the highest you can start with is a 16. That both preserves the sense that some races are just stronger, faster, etc., but doesn't actually provide a higher bonus for those first 3 levels.

You can thank me when 6e is in print.

I think that is a really good compromise. A house rule, but a great compromise.

And I will apologize now for dragging the thread on. I know I still don't fully understand (or agree) with the need for the change, but do appreciate the many that tried over and over to explain their viewpoint. Thank you.

 

[Scott Christian]

When you can't just max your main stat and say 'job's a good 'un' it directs you to seek other routes to do things, taking advantage of things that are the thematic niche of your race.

Very well stated.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In our main game one player rolled 17, 16, 17, 14, 14, 13 using 4d6-L, so yeah sometimes dice just BURN!

Of course characters are more than just stats, but for myself to start with maxed out 20 in my main ability seems undesirable as it is one less place to grow.

On the up side, it does provide more incentive to take feats over ASIs.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Please don’t invent dichotomies based on arguments I didn’t make.

I’m confused. Haven’t you argued multiple times in this thread against the relevance of 3rd ASIs, because of the infrequency of games that go past level 10? How is it unfair to apply that same logic to the infrequency of gnomes and halflings in Strength-based classes?

Maybe I was misunderstanding your argument. If so, I apologize.

 

[Maxperson]

In our main game one player rolled 17, 16, 17, 14, 14, 13 using 4d6-L, so yeah sometimes dice just BURN!

Of course characters are more than just stats, but for myself to start with maxed out 20 in my main ability seems undesirable as it is one less place to grow.

To me it's one less place to worry about and I prefer feats anyway. Stats just don't matter as much in 5e and feats do more for the character RP wise.

 

[DND_Reborn]

To me it's one less place to worry about and I prefer feats anyway. Stats just don't matter as much in 5e and feats do more for the character RP wise.

Sure, with my own character, I finally spent my level 16 feat on ASI bump. I've chosen feats that include an ASI +1, sure, but the feats also fit the character concept well and this way my first full ASI increase.

I had 16's in INT and WIS, so for being a cleric and wizard, +3's were more than enough to make the character a vital part of the team. I just acquired a Tome of Clear Thought, and decided to match the +2 increase in INT with my 16th level ASI for WIS +2 as well. (It was also easier because my spell attack, spell DC, etc. all remain even between the two classes. )

So, IMO, 16 is sufficient for the game. Going to 18 or even 20 is only necessary if you really feel it is important to your character's concept. Others want the 18 or 20 more for performance, which is fine of course, but for me it isn't necessary at all.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, with my own character, I finally spent my level 16 feat on ASI bump. I've chosen feats that include an ASI +1, sure, but the feats also fit the character concept well and this way my first full ASI increase.

I had 16's in INT and WIS, so for being a cleric and wizard, +3's were more than enough to make the character a vital part of the team. I just acquired a Tome of Clear Thought, and decided to match the +2 increase in INT with my 16th level ASI for WIS +2 as well. (It was also easier because my spell attack, spell DC, etc. all remain even between the two classes. )

So, IMO, 16 is sufficient for the game. Going to 18 or even 20 is only necessary if you really feel it is important to your character's concept. Others want the 18 or 20 more for performance, which is fine of course, but for me it isn't necessary at all.

16 is the sweet spot for me as well.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’m confused. Haven’t you argued multiple times in this thread against the relevance of 3rd ASIs, because of the infrequency of games that go past level 10? How is it unfair to apply that same logic to the infrequency of gnomes and halflings in Strength-based classes?

Maybe I was misunderstanding your argument. If so, I apologize.

For one, they’re not like cases.
A portion of the community makes halflings in strength builds. Many folks would like to do so more but don’t like being behind others of the same build. That’s all that matters wrt to strength halflings.

OTOH, levels reached in most campaigns matters to the specific argument I brought it up for, because I was stating that it’s an unfair counter argument to say “the halfling will hit 20 strength anyway, so there is no real difference”.

You have either forgotten, or ignored in the first place, that my argument was that most players, if they get 3 ASIs, won’t do so until the very end of their campaign. Ie, most of their career/campaign is spent behind the Orc Barbarian in strength.

That is worth taking into account, and largely invalidates any argument that it doesn’t actually matter that the halfling is behind the Orc, because someday (at the very end of their campaign, more often than not) they will have the same strength.

It’s like when talking about optimization, and we pretty much all agree that if a build comes together at level 12 it’s not a good build. Even in a 1-20 campaign, that’s half the campaign. Spending half the campaign in a state one finds undesirable is a significant thing, much less, 90% of the campaign.