Level Up (A5E) Where to put ability bonuses during character creation

[clearstream]

This is just a quick dirty poll. It doesn't replace the survey we'll do later, or the actual playtest packet we'll put out. I just wanted to do a quick straw poll to get the sense of consensus on it.

We're referring to the ability score bonuses currently assigned to races in the existing 5E core rulebooks. Most get +3/+4 in total at present, usually split into a +2 and another +2 or +1, with some exceptions.

Any particular reason for excluding putting them into class as an option?

 

[Morrus]

Any particular reason for excluding putting them into class as an option?

No reason.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I know there was a great debate about this months ago, that I didn't participate in or read. But. Why is okay for Elves to have better vision than other races but saying they have better Dexterity is bad? Why is it specifically differentiating by ASI that is bad? Or have I misunderstood and giving characters of elven ancestry Darkvision 60 feet is also considered bad?

Can I ask if you are thinking of this in terms like the one about orcs and racism? You don't actually say that, but that's the vibe I'm getting trying to read between the lines. If so, I think it's largely a misconception. Certainly there are people who are thinking that way, but for most people I've seen posting on this topic it's about reducing the extent to which players have to choose between roleplaying and optimization.

I wouldn't call racial ASIs "bad" in the moral sense, but I do think they are bad design. Evidence suggests that the +2 ASI is so tempting mechanically that many players are choosing race not for roleplaying reasons, but because of mechanical optimization. Some of us think the game would be cooler if more people would pick the race they want to play....if there were more Dwarf rogues and Halforc wizards and Halfling fighters...instead of the one that gives the best bonuses.

Now, optimizers are gonna optimize, but not all optimizers are equally motivated. Somebody who picks a race just for the +2 ASI might not be as motivated by features that benefit the various classes more equally.

Would no racial ASIs eliminate all optimization? No. But it would likely reduce a good chunk of it.

 

[jmucchiello]

That's why (somewhere) I suggested the racial ASIs be a choice. Elves grant +2 Dex or +2 Int. It would make the race/classes combos more broad. But frankly, I don't see why we need to fix all the bards are half-elves since it's not the kind of thing you see at the table where just you and your friends play. It's seen in data aggregation and nobody plays in a game where aggregation means a thing.

But I'm asking the above in the context Jeremy Crawford's post a couple months back. Some people are saying on this thread that ASIs on race are racist. And that's why I asked what I asked.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

But I'm asking the above in the context Jeremy Crawford's post a couple months back. Some people are saying on this thread that ASIs on race are racist. And that's why I asked what I asked.

Lets not go back there. Those threads were closed for a good reason. Lets stay focused on where to put the ASI in this new game to make the character generation mini-game more fun. Please.

 

[ART!]

FWIW, I detached initial ASIs from race in my latest game, and I think only 1 out of 6 players put them in different places than the races usually get. I think they couldn't quite get their heads around the idea and just went with what they knew. If I do that with the next game, I will stress it more and see what happens.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That's why (somewhere) I suggested the racial ASIs be a choice. Elves grant +2 Dex or +2 Int. It would make the race/classes combos more broad. But frankly, I don't see why we need to fix all the bards are half-elves since it's not the kind of thing you see at the table where just you and your friends play. It's seen in data aggregation and nobody plays in a game where aggregation means a thing.

Well, I do see that. With one exception (we have a player who comes up with the most astonishingly non-optimal builds) I definitely tend to see the same usually, optimized race/class combinations. Not always, but quite often.

What I don't see at my table is the larger statistical impact of racial ASIs on "flavor". Do Halforcs tend to be stronger than humans? I dunno. All the halforcs I see are fighters or barbarians, and I can't say that I've noticed that halforcs are stronger than the other fighters and barbarians.

But I'm asking the above in the context Jeremy Crawford's post a couple months back. Some people are saying on this thread that ASIs on race are racist. And that's why I asked what I asked.

In this thread? I must have missed those posts. Do you remember where, or even on what page? Now I'm curious.

 

[TheSword]

My hesitation to having it tied to background is that currently backgrounds are customizable very easily by picking two skills and a minor RP benefit. If we start tying stat boosts to this, new backgrounds are either gonna get contentious or will be totally freeform still - in which case what is the point of tying the stat to background - just leave it floating.

As I said the reason not to tie it class is that classes are the future for most people starting at level 1 not the last. Class can and does change and it makes little sense to give the fighter +1 strength when the next 19 class level are sorcerer.

[Edit] In addition the later class ASIs aren’t tied to a single stat so why would the first one be?

 

[Guest 6801328]

As I said the reason not to tie it class is that classes are the future for most people starting at level 1 not the last. Class can and does change and it makes little sense to give the fighter +1 strength when the next 19 class level are sorcerer.

I hadn't thought of that.

But in my opinion anything that reduces the incentive to multiclass...especially to just dip one level...is a good thing.

 

[Maxperson]

What I don't see at my table is the larger statistical impact of racial ASIs on "flavor". Do Halforcs tend to be stronger than humans? I dunno. All the halforcs I see are fighters or barbarians, and I can't say that I've noticed that halforcs are stronger than the other fighters and barbarians.

How can you not know if Half-Orcs tend to be stronger than Humans? It's simple math. Humans get either +0 or +1 to strength, depending on the type of Human. Half-Orcs get +2. Therefore, Half-Orcs are stronger as a race than Humans, even if some individuals(like PCs) are different.