Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8043880" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Well, that is my point. RAW they hardly ever branch out, but they are tempted and might try a new race if the ASI will benefit their class. By making it floating, they have no incentive to try a race that RAW would otherwise benefit their primary ability score.Usually IME if someone chooses a race that does not have an ASI to support their class, it is because the race has other features that they find intriguing and interesting to support that class in other ways. In that respect, it is a pity IMO if someone who loves to play bards always wants to have a CHA +2 (or +1 maybe) race. There's nothing wrong with that of course, I just feel they are potentially depriving themselves of opportunities otherwise. But, to each their own.Why do you think of it as penalizing one player?If they don't have the ASI +2 where they want it, they have it someplace else. Maybe it bumps a save or a bunch of skills they want? A perfect example is the mountain dwarf wizard. Sure, one fewer prepared spell (with only 2 slots at level 1, hardly a big deal) and -1 on attacks/save DC? So, there is SO much of how good that character is that depends on other factors. Consider this as an example. A dwarf wizard in chain shirt has AC 13 all the time without having to use a spell slot (VERY VALUABLE!) for Mage Armor. Not only does he not need to bother learning and preparing the spell, he doesn't have to waste a slot casting it.For the character who selects the INT +2 race for wizard, they get other benefits of course and might be more focused on getting that attack bonus and higher DC for saves.Your assumption that an INT 14 wizard can't be competitive with an INT 16 wizard is off IMO. There are way too many other factors that influence what makes a character competitive (and/or useful and/or fun to play). Please don't misunderstand me, I totally get your point, I just don't believe it weighs as heavily as you do. YMMV of course. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Tomato - tamato? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />More precisely, it leads to:Most players always picking races that maximize their primary ability score via ASI +2OrPlayers potentially playing the same few races all the time because they can tailor the floating ASIs wherever they want them.Honestly, it really doesn't matter to me. I am perfectly happy with RAW and I've played in many games with floating ASIs. Personally, I would rather just get rid of them altogether. My philosophy has always been you want a good score, put a high score there. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Maybe? Maybe not. But then you might was well just boost all the systems and remove the ASIs altogether. The net effect is the same.</blockquote>

Verification