Lemme guess, none of your DMs award XP for RP, puzzles & traps, or clever use of proficiencies either, do they? Stingy, miserly mofos. No wonder you’re all so disgruntled.
I need to remember not to reply to you in these kinds of threads. I'm not a member of the Forum Loudmouth Club and don't deal well with dismissive snark responses to my earnest posts. Important lesson to learn about oneself at some point I guess.
Don’t be mistaken. While there was most definitely some snark there my post was earnest too. Does your DM award XP (or consider it contributing towards milestone) when you RP well, or overcome non-combat challenges? Yes or no?
That is objectively not true. There no race/class combinations not allowed in 5th Edition. If you chose to not play a particular combination, that is on you, not the rule set.
It punishes you in game terms if you are, say, a fighter and have less strength because you chose a race that gives ASI's that don't work well with your class.
Yes, you can pick any class you want, it is allowed.
However, if you prefer a certain race due to flavor or because you enjoyed reading about them in fantasy, your effective amount of optimal classes should NOT go down. But with 5e's rules in the category, it does.
Also, as others have mentioned, newbs who do not understand how the ASI's by race in the PHB work might choose a class that is not as good in gameplay, and that, in my opinion is a design flaw in the system.
The power level of certain race/class combinations will not majorly unbalance your character. It can still mess things up though.
It can’t really “mess up” anything. Why are “optimal classes” the only valid ones to choose? Are you really telling me that starting with a 15 instead of a 16 in your main stat is really that big of a deal? Because it’s not. You don’t “lose” anything that way, it just takes a couple of extra levels before you max out your score is all. Stop acting like it’s some major handicap or something to be only 80-90% optimized instead of 100% optimized.
Would you rather deal 1d8+2 damage, or 1d8+3?
The difference is small, but it can still be important.
Also, "optimal classes" as you put it, are certainly not the only ones you should take. I explained that racial tied ASI's are the flaw with the system, that IT forces choices between classes that work better with races, or slightly less good ones. Essentially forcing you into a situation between more fun, or a bit better optimized character.
This, is what are we are complaining about when we talk about racial ASI's, not the other way around.
The difference between +2 and +3 is so small to be negligible.
And IT doesn’t force any such thing, peoples’ own small mindedness makes them think they are forced into one thing or another. Break the shackles and free yourself li’l bruddah!
The system does force you into a choice about a bit more optimization (having your ASI's go to ability scores you need) or a bit more fun (getting to play the coolest looking race).
This choice is small, but optimization should not come at the price of fun, and that's what people like me are trying to get rid of when they ask to eliminate racial tied ASI's.
As you clearly recognize that the fun is the goal, why keep choosing optimized? Choose fun, and simply let optimized happen when it happens. That was the intent in the design.
I would love to see in depth class books. More weapons, more spells, more armour. Class based feats. And all of this setting neutral.
Edit: A form of prestige class. Limited in lvls.
Every weapon imaginable is represented. Want a katana, its just a long sword stat wise, so just use a long sword and imagine it as a katana. Was full bodied banded splint mail made from ironwood, that's just plate.
I agree with more spells (there are tons of spells in older eds that I've home brewed and brought back), but having splat books for every class is just silly. Either they will be very small and people will complain its a waste, or worse yet, they will try to make dozens and dozens of sub classes to bloat the book, and we will be suffering the same issues of 3.5.
I love getting a couple new sub-classes every major book, a few new magic items, some new races, etc. But we don't need to rehash the sins of the father systems. If a person wants a solid, yet overly complex, cumbersome, low home brew, low imagination system, 3.5 was great. If people want highly tactical, straight forward system that is ideal for VTT's, 4e is perfect. If people want high imagination, low rules, cumbersome tables, 2e is their go to. if they want a classic feel where there is absolutely no balance, and that's okay, 1e is golden.
If people want an even more cumbersome and exaggerated 3.5, go to pathfinder 1e. People want 4e but not actually admit it, pathfinder 2e is the place to go.
Then we can talk GURPS, WoD, Palladium, and the hundreds if not thousands of other systems out there with their boons and flaws to offer any group.
5e is nearly perfect for it's intent. Highly approachable, easy to pickup and learn, enough customization available, without clogging the arteries. It takes a lot of imagination to play it as not everything is defined explicitly, but it gives DMs and players a lot of leeway in expressing their character and story. Is it as deep or robust as older editions, no. Is it as well suited for virtual play? lol no. are there plenty of issues with some mechanics not working as printed (heat metal and mending actually cant function as printed)? yeah. Do DMs need to be able to make rulings? yep. But does it do what it was designed to do VERY well? yeah.
I would love to see in depth class books. More weapons, more spells, more armour. Class based feats. And all of this setting neutral.
Edit: A form of prestige class. Limited in lvls.
Every weapon imaginable is represented. Want a katana, its just a long sword stat wise, so just use a long sword and imagine it as a katana. Was full bodied banded splint mail made from ironwood, that's just plate.
I agree with more spells (there are tons of spells in older eds that I've home brewed and brought back), but having splat books for every class is just silly. Either they will be very small and people will complain its a waste, or worse yet, they will try to make dozens and dozens of sub classes to bloat the book, and we will be suffering the same issues of 3.5.
I love getting a couple new sub-classes every major book, a few new magic items, some new races, etc. But we don't need to rehash the sins of the father systems. If a person wants a solid, yet overly complex, cumbersome, low home brew, low imagination system, 3.5 was great. If people want highly tactical, straight forward system that is ideal for VTT's, 4e is perfect. If people want high imagination, low rules, cumbersome tables, 2e is their go to. if they want a classic feel where there is absolutely no balance, and that's okay, 1e is golden.
If people want an even more cumbersome and exaggerated 3.5, go to pathfinder 1e. People want 4e but not actually admit it, pathfinder 2e is the place to go.
Then we can talk GURPS, WoD, Palladium, and the hundreds if not thousands of other systems out there with their boons and flaws to offer any group.
5e is nearly perfect for it's intent. Highly approachable, easy to pickup and learn, enough customization available, without clogging the arteries. It takes a lot of imagination to play it as not everything is defined explicitly, but it gives DMs and players a lot of leeway in expressing their character and story. Is it as deep or robust as older editions, no. Is it as well suited for virtual play? lol no. are there plenty of issues with some mechanics not working as printed (heat metal and mending actually cant function as printed)? yeah. Do DMs need to be able to make rulings? yep. But does it do what it was designed to do VERY well? yeah.
You just described what I don't like about 5e. If I want to play theatre of the mind I'll play WoD revised thank you very much.
As you clearly recognize that the fun is the goal, why keep choosing optimized? Choose fun, and simply let optimized happen when it happens. That was the intent in the design.
What I want is level 1 ASI for all races and toss out V human
I do think humanity as a D&D species is boring as hell when it doesn't need to be. The whole "+1 to everything!" is lazy beyond reason, and I don't care that it's traditional. It doesn't speak to anything humanity is supposedly good at, all it says is "we decided to make these people generically semi-meh at everything" when humanity is supposed to be the species possessed of the greatest drive and ambition.
My favorite homebrew rebake runs off of Variant Human, but replaces the bonus feat with a "Driven To Succeed' ability. Like so: "More than any other species, humanity is driven to succeed where others would give up and fail. When you make an ability check using a skill or tool with which you are proficient and fail the check, you may roll the d20 a second time and substitute that result for the first check. If the new roll would have succeeded, you're considered to have succeeded on the original roll. Once you use this feature, you may not do so again until you finish a long rest." Went a long way towards 'fixing' the human stat block, at least for me.
I do think humanity as a D&D species is boring as hell when it doesn't need to be. The whole "+1 to everything!" is lazy beyond reason, and I don't care that it's traditional.
The problem is mostly that they decided that races should never come with disadvantages, and "worse than humans at X" winds up being read as a disadvantage.
"It punishes you in game terms if you are, say, a fighter and have less strength because you chose a race that gives ASI's that don't work well with your class."
Who says you want to be a Strength based Fighter? Fighters can be Dexterity based and use bows as much as they use swords. I wouldn't call it a punishment to a have a lower Strength score because maybe Strength was never your goal for your build to begin with anyways.
"those who don’t like rolling for stats because it can create imbalance between characters are the same ones who like the floating ASI’s"
I'm fine with rolling stats and love floating bonuses because floating bonuses to me help me build my character.
Sometimes I want to have a high Charisma because Barbarian class pick aside I want to lean into role-play more than combat with the character and so a higher Charisma stat allows me to have good numbers for bonuses for Charisma elements. It would be a bummer to have to put a +2 into Intel just because I picked a certain race when Intelligence isn't what I care about being a part in; I don't want to be the group historian this time I want to be the group leader or comedian working with the Bard for hussle money. Ha. I very much think bonuses need to be removed from races because it does not make sense logically; yes you can argue some cases like "lore says xyz about dwarves so of course they'd get a +2 to Constitution" but I find more often than not you can't explain away some of the choices- why do humans get so many bonuses but other races don't? Yes it's just a +1 but it's to every stat when others only get +2 and +1. What makes those with Intelligence bonuses so smart to have them over others?!
Racial bonuses are just more problematic to me than connection bonuses to class.
It makes more sense to say again a Paladin or Cleric gets a +2 to Strength because they carry around so much heavy armor all the time than it does a half-orc gets it because they're half orc. A rogue getting a +1 to Dexterity because of their nimble fingers makes more sense to me than an elf having a bonus just because they're thin. I say just grant the bonuses as a starting feature because you're a "hero character" but if they have to be connected to something they should be connected to class not race.
"I prefer fixed racial ASIs because I feel it adds something important to my character’s identity"
Such as what IamSposta?
I ask because I'm genuinely curious why so many want to keep them tied to race. Is it the fact you like lore saying elves are just charismatic because history has said they are and so of course they'd get a +2 to Charisma? If it's the bonuses you care about to say my fighter is the strongest because they have an 18 at the start so they're almost god like in Strength at the start then what does it matter where the bonus comes from as long as you get the +2 and +1?
Maybe I'm just missing the appeal behind it all, but yeah I don't get bonuses being tied to races as life situations diversify species so not every elf is going to be charismatic...one may have a bad attitude and thus people stay away from them. An orc who works out is going to be stronger than one who is more into being a wizard so why should both have +2 Strength just because they're orcs? Does having Darkvision over other characters not do anything for you, that's a unique trait just like not having it is considered one; I just don't get it.
"What is this fixation on maxing out main stats?"
I think it has to do with the idea large numbers equal guaranteed success and you can do big damage numbers which feels cool and it also equal a win of the game even though that's not the main goal of most tables today - they want to experience heroic stories with people and yeah it feels good to be alive at then of the campaign but a good story is also good.
People forget again those large numbers do jack for you if you roll low so it's more about your dice rolls than your modifiers; be mods help yeah but they aren't the end all be all some make them out to be as a +5 on bad rolls is only a 13 or less which equals a miss but on good rolls it's a 20 or more which usually hits things.
If you just want to "win D&D" then you don't need outrageously high starting stats you just need loaded dice which always roll between 15 and 20.
If you want to just win a game I'd recommend playing video games not TTRPGs because while yes you can be alive at the end and thus get the happy ending to "win" is the victory all you wanted or is it about the journey along the way? The journey doesn't care about mods so why should you? Yes it's great to an 18 on your paper for a stat but again they 18 is going to do nothing for you if you can't roll well.
"In 2e, whatever stats you got at creation were your permanent lifetime stats"
Now that's a challenge game if the bad guys still scale up but you don't!
"I liked fixed ASIs because, for me, they are as much a part of the race as flight, darkvision, etc. One naturally gets wings (30' of Flying), the other naturally gets improved / more muscle mass (+1 Strength)."
How so Jaeken? Wings and darkvision are biological, strength is more earned through training. You can train to have more muscle mass but you can't train to grow wings.
Again why are elves more charismatic than others? Even if you go cliche and say Charisma equals how attractive you are there are other attractive individuals of other races out there so why do only elves get +2? If you have an orc and human of the same size why does the orc deserve a +2 to Strength just for being an orc but the human only gets a +1...they're both the same size muscle mass wise.
"Lemme guess, none of your DMs award XP for RP, puzzles & traps, or clever use of proficiencies either, do they?"
My DM rewards RP for sure and if you are creative on situation solving that's XP on top of general combat XP but still doing XP it can take more than 10 sessions to level up.
I will grant we have a large group of players who enjoy RP but we are honestly about 50/50 on RP to combat and it still takes time so I don't think you can say it should be X sessions to X level only. It may work for you and that's great because you get to see higher levels more often but not every group works that way and it's not because the DM doesn't give out XP. It takes a lot of XP to reach higher levels using the XP chart so you can speedrun it with the threat of TPKing the party because of using high XP encounters or you can dial or back and have the PCs maybe survive more and let players have more time with this PC - it's preference not a rule.
That is objectively not true. There no race/class combinations not allowed in 5th Edition. If you chose to not play a particular combination, that is on you, not the rule set.
It punishes you in game terms if you are, say, a fighter and have less strength because you chose a race that gives ASI's that don't work well with your class.
Yes, you can pick any class you want, it is allowed.
However, if you prefer a certain race due to flavor or because you enjoyed reading about them in fantasy, your effective amount of optimal classes should NOT go down. But with 5e's rules in the category, it does.
Also, as others have mentioned, newbs who do not understand how the ASI's by race in the PHB work might choose a class that is not as good in gameplay, and that, in my opinion is a design flaw in the system.
The power level of certain race/class combinations will not majorly unbalance your character. It can still mess things up though.
It can’t really “mess up” anything. Why are “optimal classes” the only valid ones to choose? Are you really telling me that starting with a 15 instead of a 16 in your main stat is really that big of a deal? Because it’s not. You don’t “lose” anything that way, it just takes a couple of extra levels before you max out your score is all. Stop acting like it’s some major handicap or something to be only 80-90% optimized instead of 100% optimized.
Would you rather deal 1d8+2 damage, or 1d8+3?
The difference is small, but it can still be important.
Also, "optimal classes" as you put it, are certainly not the only ones you should take. I explained that racial tied ASI's are the flaw with the system, that IT forces choices between classes that work better with races, or slightly less good ones. Essentially forcing you into a situation between more fun, or a bit better optimized character.
This, is what are we are complaining about when we talk about racial ASI's, not the other way around.
The difference between +2 and +3 is so small to be negligible.
And IT doesn’t force any such thing, peoples’ own small mindedness makes them think they are forced into one thing or another. Break the shackles and free yourself li’l bruddah!
The system does force you into a choice about a bit more optimization (having your ASI's go to ability scores you need) or a bit more fun (getting to play the coolest looking race).
This choice is small, but optimization should not come at the price of fun, and that's what people like me are trying to get rid of when they ask to eliminate racial tied ASI's.
As you clearly recognize that the fun is the goal, why keep choosing optimized? Choose fun, and simply let optimized happen when it happens. That was the intent in the design.
We are not choosing to optimize characters. We are saying that the system pushes you towards having an optimized character. OR having more fun.
Unfortunantely, choosing fun is not a huge detriment, however it could hurt you in a combat heavy campaign (yes it really can).
Again, the difference may be fairly small, but it can still really hurt, and fun should not come at the cost of a better mechanical character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
"I liked fixed ASIs because, for me, they are as much a part of the race as flight, darkvision, etc. One naturally gets wings (30' of Flying), the other naturally gets improved / more muscle mass (+1 Strength)."
How so Jaeken? Wings and darkvision are biological, strength is more earned through training. You can train to have more muscle mass but you can't train to grow wings.
Again why are elves more charismatic than others? Even if you go cliche and say Charisma equals how attractive you are there are other attractive individuals of other races out there so why do only elves get +2? If you have an orc and human of the same size why does the orc deserve a +2 to Strength just for being an orc but the human only gets a +1...they're both the same size muscle mass wise.
Elves with +2 Charisma? Citation needed. While you're going about that, please provide ones for "strength is more earned through training" (compared to what?), & "they're both the same size muscle mass wise" also. And if you can dig up a relevant reference to non-biological strength, I'll take one of those as well.
Per this very website we are on - https://www.dndbeyond.com/races/20-half-elf : "Ability Score Increase Your Charisma score increases by 2, and two other ability scores of your choice increase by 1."
What makes half-elves so charismatic they deserve a +2 over others and then an additional 2 +1s to any stat? Yes teiflings also have a +2 to Charisma but still why are they charismatic races? Charisma is something you can be so you is it limited to two races in this example? Why can't a half-orc have it if they have trained to become a bard?
Someone who's trained in performance towards crowds is arguably going to be more charismatic than someone who's just born.
Yes you have people who are just born charming but it's not a handful of selected races - it's individuals and thusly bonuses should be allowed to fit the individual you are building.
"please provide ones for "strength is more earned through training" (compared to what?)"
Compared to not training. Someone who works out and lifts weights is going to be stronger physically than someone who does not; if as a paladin you carry around heavy armor all day you're going to be strong regardless of your race. Sure a goliath might be stronger than a dwarf because they have the potential for more muscle by mass but both are strong if they work and don't just lay around in luxury so again why limit who gets +2 in Strength? You can have a buff gnome if they work out all the time on top of carrying adventuring gear around town just as you can have a skinny dragonborn who's not able to carry as much because he's into reading books instead of doing manual labor.
"& "they're both the same size muscle mass wise" also"
If you have two things that are equal in size they are by definition the same. Being the same means one is not better than the other so again why does A get a + and B doesn't? Tying bonuses to races is a broken concept when you look at what each stat means; no one race owns the right to be strong for bonuses to Strength; no one race is the most nimble to own Dexterity. By the amounts of bonuses there are at least one to two races which share similar bonuses tied to race so if you can have more than one why can't the bonuses float instead? If bonuses were just so important to race shouldn't all half-elves roll with advantage for Charisma effects to showcase the fact they are worth the +2? What makes X race worthy of Y bonuses to C stat over others? Are you saying a gnome bard is less charismatic than a half-elf monk? How as the gnome literally lives on entertainment which is charismatic based while the half-elf just hangs back usually secluded unless part of an adventuring group!
"And if you can dig up a relevant reference to non-biological strength, I'll take one of those as well."
You said for you racial bonuses were on the same level as racial traits such as flying and darkvision, but if you again just work out you can become stronger regardless of your race. If you practice good jokes you can be more charismatic to people than if you didn't; you can improve your stats and stats are just elements of a personality - wings are biological physical traits. You can work to improve stats again, you can't just work to get physically part of your body wings if you don't have them; yes for darkvision there's the Googles Of Night but you still have to have help of the googles to have that you aren't born with darkvision unless you are as a race thing...however both the darkvision race and no darkvision race can both have high Dexterity Scores if they've trained in those skills, they're not limited to something because of their race.
If both races work on stealing purses from citizens then both have in my mind earned the +2 to DEX if they want it; I'm not going to say only the halfling gets it because they're a halfling and that's currently a suggestion the book gives at this time.
The PHB itself says it's not some holy grail so if you don't like something change it and by doing so why have bonuses tied to anything?!
As others have said just make it starting bonuses for being a PC and just roll your stats and then get a +2 and a +1 to stats of your choice up to a maximum choice of two stats.
Again this eliminates all imbalances from humans getting basically six increases just for being human and half-elves getting 3 choices while the rest get only 2. It also takes out debates over inconsistencies as to why X race would get bonuses to a stat but someone who actually trained to be a cleric wouldn't get a bonus because Wisdom isn't one of their currently predetermined stats. Wisdom is taught by learning as you go so if you're just a born new baby how could you have more Wisdom than someone who's been around...and again this stat alone shows why stats shouldn't be racial because Wisdom is something you get over time not something you're instantly born with and the same for intelligence!
Racial bonuses do not make logical sense.
If you want to tie stats to something it should at least be class as classes specialize in things and then so of course you'd be more dexterous as a Rogue compared to a Paladin - being nimble is part of your craft. Paladins are arguably stronger than rogues because they carry around again heavy armor all day! Barbarians are known for being hearty so of course they'd get Constitution bonuses and so on! Its not perfect either honestly when building your ideal character, but it makes more sense than some race getting a bonuses just for being that race.
Looking at human in particular, the +1 to all stats is kind of interesting to take literally. So all humans are almost as dexterous as elves on average and just as intelligent on average as high elves, or just as wise on average as a wood elf. Humans on average are almost as strong as a half orc and the same constitution wise as half orcs, on average. Instead of being adaptable the average human is just kind of good at everything. Which is part of why the asis as is are kind of silly to me to take too seriously. And flavor wise, just far less interesting than the actual racial features.
Humans on average match the constitution of half orcs, but they dont' get savage attacks and relentless endurance for example. For me, this allows people to play the class/race combo they want without having to take a penalty to their stats, while also keeping the much more interesting, flavorful features to differentiate races. The ones that actually make sense as racial features when compared to the baseline +1 to all stats human.
Per this very website we are on - https://www.dndbeyond.com/races/20-half-elf : "Ability Score Increase Your Charisma score increases by 2, and two other ability scores of your choice increase by 1."
Someone who's trained in performance towards crowds is arguably going to be more charismatic than someone who's just born.
Easy peasy. The Half-elf uses a rolled 3, or arrayed 8, or assigns 0 points to Charisma, & has a 5 or 10 total. The Half-orc with a racial +0 assigns a 11 or higher roll/array spot, or spends 3+ points and has a 11+ Charisma. The thing they worked on pre-campaign gets assigned more/better scores, regardless of any racial effects, and has a higher end result.
As to the rest... you're able to type all this out on the Internet because humans gets the biggest bonus to Intelligence of any species on the planet. The best counter-argument to your position, is you.
Per this very website we are on - https://www.dndbeyond.com/races/20-half-elf : "Ability Score Increase Your Charisma score increases by 2, and two other ability scores of your choice increase by 1."
"To humans, half-elves look like elves, and to elves, they look human." "As if to emphasize that they don’t really fit in to either society, half-elves raised among humans are often given elven names, and those raised among elves often take human names." - PHB
Given that the only people using this site are humans, I think it makes perfect sense for us to say, half-elves are elves. ;)
"It punishes you in game terms if you are, say, a fighter and have less strength because you chose a race that gives ASI's that don't work well with your class."
Who says you want to be a Strength based Fighter? Fighters can be Dexterity based and use bows as much as they use swords. I wouldn't call it a punishment to a have a lower Strength score because maybe Strength was never your goal for your build to begin with anyways.
But then whats the other ability you want to go off? Dexterity?
You're just in the exact same situation just with a different score.
Also, I understand your points about class based ASI's. However, I think just having whatever choice you want works better instead because even having it tied to class has some limitations. If you want to play a dex based fighter (as you mentioned above), and the class based ASI is mostly strength or something else. Then you will be limited nearly as much as with racial tied ASI's. In my opinion, class tied ASI's could severely mess with irregular builds, and people who go off irregular stats compared to class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
However, I think just having whatever choice you want works better instead because even having it tied to class has some limitations.
I fully agree "floating ASIs" or however you want to phrase them are best because you are able to closest build your character as you can; you want to make a "broken" class because it's your vision of the character do it! You want to max stats the best you can to feel like the superhero? Do it!
I was just saying if they just have to be tied to something for some reason it makes more sense for it to be tied to your class as a bonus rather than your race because your race doesn't define your personal skill set. You can argue neither does your class but if you train with swords and are good at hitting you'd probably be a good Fighter or Monk. A race is just the starting cosmetic skin if you will - yes some choices give you bonuses such as darkvision or wings but they're just your looks not what you can do.
So yeah, I'm class over race if Wizards just wants them tied to things for game reasons, but I'm very much personally on team "Pick What You Want From The Start"! 🙂
Again I think there should just be a text box post how to roll stats that says something like...
Congratulations; you've now rolled up your first character!
As a future powerful being in the realm your skills are more advanced than those of the common folk. You can assign bonuses to your stats to reflect this either by taking a +2 and a +1 and putting them into two different stats; ex: you can add +2 to your Strength for harder hits and +1 to Dexterity to better dodge oncoming hits. Or you can add +1 to three various stats; ex: +1 to Wisdom, +1 to Charisma, and a +1 to Constituon will benefit any Cleric.
Alternatively, you can take a +3 and put it into one stat but this starting total may not exceed 20!
Example: Your rolled total of 14 + 3 would give you a 17 for a starting Intelligence score (see Modifiers on page X to see the coronation number you get for this total).
Because I also very much think it's only fair to allow a +3 in the game if you're going to bust up the +2 into ones and spread them out.
I for one also like the racial ASIs and hope we get them back in 5.5e. I think there should also be an option to take a floating ASI too for those who prefer it. Give us both options and let us choose which one we use.
I think the ideal scenario for starting ASIs would be:
- First, your class tells you what's the most useful for it
- Then, your background tells you what ASIs you most likely would have
- Then, your race tells you which background you most likely would have
- Finally, it says "do whatever you want though."
Example: You look at Half-Elf and it says "usually wanderers (usually Wis or Con) or sages (usually Int)." You like the sound of sage. You look at Bard and it says "you probably want Cha," and you agree, so you decide to pick Half-elf Sage Bard and just put your ASI into Cha. Since the sage background values Int, you figure it makes sense to make Int your next highest stat. You decide that your character gets restless studying alone all the time, and prefers to go out into the world and meet people; however, his training as a sage still colors his decisions. By golly, that's a character.
"It punishes you in game terms if you are, say, a fighter and have less strength because you chose a race that gives ASI's that don't work well with your class."
Who says you want to be a Strength based Fighter? Fighters can be Dexterity based and use bows as much as they use swords. I wouldn't call it a punishment to a have a lower Strength score because maybe Strength was never your goal for your build to begin with anyways.
But then whats the other ability you want to go off? Dexterity?
You're just in the exact same situation just with a different score.
Also, I understand your points about class based ASI's. However, I think just having whatever choice you want works better instead because even having it tied to class has some limitations. If you want to play a dex based fighter (as you mentioned above), and the class based ASI is mostly strength or something else. Then you will be limited nearly as much as with racial tied ASI's. In my opinion, class tied ASI's could severely mess with irregular builds, and people who go off irregular stats compared to class.
When I mentioned class based ASI’s instead of tied to race I meant it as floating ASI’s that you pick when you select your class, along with class proficiencies like skills, etc. so if you go fighter you pick your proficiencies, your fighting style, and your +2/+1. You want to put them in CHA and WIS be my guest.
Don’t be mistaken. While there was most definitely some snark there my post was earnest too. Does your DM award XP (or consider it contributing towards milestone) when you RP well, or overcome non-combat challenges? Yes or no?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
As you clearly recognize that the fun is the goal, why keep choosing optimized? Choose fun, and simply let optimized happen when it happens. That was the intent in the design.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
What I want is level 1 ASI for all races and toss out V human
Every weapon imaginable is represented. Want a katana, its just a long sword stat wise, so just use a long sword and imagine it as a katana. Was full bodied banded splint mail made from ironwood, that's just plate.
I agree with more spells (there are tons of spells in older eds that I've home brewed and brought back), but having splat books for every class is just silly. Either they will be very small and people will complain its a waste, or worse yet, they will try to make dozens and dozens of sub classes to bloat the book, and we will be suffering the same issues of 3.5.
I love getting a couple new sub-classes every major book, a few new magic items, some new races, etc. But we don't need to rehash the sins of the father systems. If a person wants a solid, yet overly complex, cumbersome, low home brew, low imagination system, 3.5 was great. If people want highly tactical, straight forward system that is ideal for VTT's, 4e is perfect. If people want high imagination, low rules, cumbersome tables, 2e is their go to. if they want a classic feel where there is absolutely no balance, and that's okay, 1e is golden.
If people want an even more cumbersome and exaggerated 3.5, go to pathfinder 1e. People want 4e but not actually admit it, pathfinder 2e is the place to go.
Then we can talk GURPS, WoD, Palladium, and the hundreds if not thousands of other systems out there with their boons and flaws to offer any group.
5e is nearly perfect for it's intent. Highly approachable, easy to pickup and learn, enough customization available, without clogging the arteries. It takes a lot of imagination to play it as not everything is defined explicitly, but it gives DMs and players a lot of leeway in expressing their character and story. Is it as deep or robust as older editions, no. Is it as well suited for virtual play? lol no. are there plenty of issues with some mechanics not working as printed (heat metal and mending actually cant function as printed)? yeah. Do DMs need to be able to make rulings? yep. But does it do what it was designed to do VERY well? yeah.
You just described what I don't like about 5e. If I want to play theatre of the mind I'll play WoD revised thank you very much.
Because unfairness does not contribute to fun?
I do think humanity as a D&D species is boring as hell when it doesn't need to be. The whole "+1 to everything!" is lazy beyond reason, and I don't care that it's traditional. It doesn't speak to anything humanity is supposedly good at, all it says is "we decided to make these people generically semi-meh at everything" when humanity is supposed to be the species possessed of the greatest drive and ambition.
My favorite homebrew rebake runs off of Variant Human, but replaces the bonus feat with a "Driven To Succeed' ability. Like so: "More than any other species, humanity is driven to succeed where others would give up and fail. When you make an ability check using a skill or tool with which you are proficient and fail the check, you may roll the d20 a second time and substitute that result for the first check. If the new roll would have succeeded, you're considered to have succeeded on the original roll. Once you use this feature, you may not do so again until you finish a long rest." Went a long way towards 'fixing' the human stat block, at least for me.
Please do not contact or message me.
The problem is mostly that they decided that races should never come with disadvantages, and "worse than humans at X" winds up being read as a disadvantage.
"It punishes you in game terms if you are, say, a fighter and have less strength because you chose a race that gives ASI's that don't work well with your class."
Who says you want to be a Strength based Fighter? Fighters can be Dexterity based and use bows as much as they use swords. I wouldn't call it a punishment to a have a lower Strength score because maybe Strength was never your goal for your build to begin with anyways.
"those who don’t like rolling for stats because it can create imbalance between characters are the same ones who like the floating ASI’s"
I'm fine with rolling stats and love floating bonuses because floating bonuses to me help me build my character.
Sometimes I want to have a high Charisma because Barbarian class pick aside I want to lean into role-play more than combat with the character and so a higher Charisma stat allows me to have good numbers for bonuses for Charisma elements. It would be a bummer to have to put a +2 into Intel just because I picked a certain race when Intelligence isn't what I care about being a part in; I don't want to be the group historian this time I want to be the group leader or comedian working with the Bard for hussle money. Ha. I very much think bonuses need to be removed from races because it does not make sense logically; yes you can argue some cases like "lore says xyz about dwarves so of course they'd get a +2 to Constitution" but I find more often than not you can't explain away some of the choices- why do humans get so many bonuses but other races don't? Yes it's just a +1 but it's to every stat when others only get +2 and +1. What makes those with Intelligence bonuses so smart to have them over others?!
Racial bonuses are just more problematic to me than connection bonuses to class.
It makes more sense to say again a Paladin or Cleric gets a +2 to Strength because they carry around so much heavy armor all the time than it does a half-orc gets it because they're half orc. A rogue getting a +1 to Dexterity because of their nimble fingers makes more sense to me than an elf having a bonus just because they're thin. I say just grant the bonuses as a starting feature because you're a "hero character" but if they have to be connected to something they should be connected to class not race.
"I prefer fixed racial ASIs because I feel it adds something important to my character’s identity"
Such as what IamSposta?
I ask because I'm genuinely curious why so many want to keep them tied to race. Is it the fact you like lore saying elves are just charismatic because history has said they are and so of course they'd get a +2 to Charisma? If it's the bonuses you care about to say my fighter is the strongest because they have an 18 at the start so they're almost god like in Strength at the start then what does it matter where the bonus comes from as long as you get the +2 and +1?
Maybe I'm just missing the appeal behind it all, but yeah I don't get bonuses being tied to races as life situations diversify species so not every elf is going to be charismatic...one may have a bad attitude and thus people stay away from them. An orc who works out is going to be stronger than one who is more into being a wizard so why should both have +2 Strength just because they're orcs? Does having Darkvision over other characters not do anything for you, that's a unique trait just like not having it is considered one; I just don't get it.
"What is this fixation on maxing out main stats?"
I think it has to do with the idea large numbers equal guaranteed success and you can do big damage numbers which feels cool and it also equal a win of the game even though that's not the main goal of most tables today - they want to experience heroic stories with people and yeah it feels good to be alive at then of the campaign but a good story is also good.
People forget again those large numbers do jack for you if you roll low so it's more about your dice rolls than your modifiers; be mods help yeah but they aren't the end all be all some make them out to be as a +5 on bad rolls is only a 13 or less which equals a miss but on good rolls it's a 20 or more which usually hits things.
If you just want to "win D&D" then you don't need outrageously high starting stats you just need loaded dice which always roll between 15 and 20.
If you want to just win a game I'd recommend playing video games not TTRPGs because while yes you can be alive at the end and thus get the happy ending to "win" is the victory all you wanted or is it about the journey along the way? The journey doesn't care about mods so why should you? Yes it's great to an 18 on your paper for a stat but again they 18 is going to do nothing for you if you can't roll well.
"In 2e, whatever stats you got at creation were your permanent lifetime stats"
Now that's a challenge game if the bad guys still scale up but you don't!
"I liked fixed ASIs because, for me, they are as much a part of the race as flight, darkvision, etc. One naturally gets wings (30' of Flying), the other naturally gets improved / more muscle mass (+1 Strength)."
How so Jaeken? Wings and darkvision are biological, strength is more earned through training. You can train to have more muscle mass but you can't train to grow wings.
Again why are elves more charismatic than others? Even if you go cliche and say Charisma equals how attractive you are there are other attractive individuals of other races out there so why do only elves get +2? If you have an orc and human of the same size why does the orc deserve a +2 to Strength just for being an orc but the human only gets a +1...they're both the same size muscle mass wise.
"Lemme guess, none of your DMs award XP for RP, puzzles & traps, or clever use of proficiencies either, do they?"
My DM rewards RP for sure and if you are creative on situation solving that's XP on top of general combat XP but still doing XP it can take more than 10 sessions to level up.
I will grant we have a large group of players who enjoy RP but we are honestly about 50/50 on RP to combat and it still takes time so I don't think you can say it should be X sessions to X level only. It may work for you and that's great because you get to see higher levels more often but not every group works that way and it's not because the DM doesn't give out XP. It takes a lot of XP to reach higher levels using the XP chart so you can speedrun it with the threat of TPKing the party because of using high XP encounters or you can dial or back and have the PCs maybe survive more and let players have more time with this PC - it's preference not a rule.
We are not choosing to optimize characters. We are saying that the system pushes you towards having an optimized character. OR having more fun.
Unfortunantely, choosing fun is not a huge detriment, however it could hurt you in a combat heavy campaign (yes it really can).
Again, the difference may be fairly small, but it can still really hurt, and fun should not come at the cost of a better mechanical character.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Elves with +2 Charisma? Citation needed. While you're going about that, please provide ones for "strength is more earned through training" (compared to what?), & "they're both the same size muscle mass wise" also. And if you can dig up a relevant reference to non-biological strength, I'll take one of those as well.
"Elves with +2 Charisma? Citation needed."
Per this very website we are on - https://www.dndbeyond.com/races/20-half-elf : "Ability Score Increase
Your Charisma score increases by 2, and two other ability scores of your choice increase by 1."
What makes half-elves so charismatic they deserve a +2 over others and then an additional 2 +1s to any stat? Yes teiflings also have a +2 to Charisma but still why are they charismatic races? Charisma is something you can be so you is it limited to two races in this example? Why can't a half-orc have it if they have trained to become a bard?
Someone who's trained in performance towards crowds is arguably going to be more charismatic than someone who's just born.
Yes you have people who are just born charming but it's not a handful of selected races - it's individuals and thusly bonuses should be allowed to fit the individual you are building.
"please provide ones for "strength is more earned through training" (compared to what?)"
Compared to not training. Someone who works out and lifts weights is going to be stronger physically than someone who does not; if as a paladin you carry around heavy armor all day you're going to be strong regardless of your race. Sure a goliath might be stronger than a dwarf because they have the potential for more muscle by mass but both are strong if they work and don't just lay around in luxury so again why limit who gets +2 in Strength? You can have a buff gnome if they work out all the time on top of carrying adventuring gear around town just as you can have a skinny dragonborn who's not able to carry as much because he's into reading books instead of doing manual labor.
"& "they're both the same size muscle mass wise" also"
If you have two things that are equal in size they are by definition the same. Being the same means one is not better than the other so again why does A get a + and B doesn't? Tying bonuses to races is a broken concept when you look at what each stat means; no one race owns the right to be strong for bonuses to Strength; no one race is the most nimble to own Dexterity. By the amounts of bonuses there are at least one to two races which share similar bonuses tied to race so if you can have more than one why can't the bonuses float instead? If bonuses were just so important to race shouldn't all half-elves roll with advantage for Charisma effects to showcase the fact they are worth the +2? What makes X race worthy of Y bonuses to C stat over others? Are you saying a gnome bard is less charismatic than a half-elf monk? How as the gnome literally lives on entertainment which is charismatic based while the half-elf just hangs back usually secluded unless part of an adventuring group!
"And if you can dig up a relevant reference to non-biological strength, I'll take one of those as well."
You said for you racial bonuses were on the same level as racial traits such as flying and darkvision, but if you again just work out you can become stronger regardless of your race. If you practice good jokes you can be more charismatic to people than if you didn't; you can improve your stats and stats are just elements of a personality - wings are biological physical traits. You can work to improve stats again, you can't just work to get physically part of your body wings if you don't have them; yes for darkvision there's the Googles Of Night but you still have to have help of the googles to have that you aren't born with darkvision unless you are as a race thing...however both the darkvision race and no darkvision race can both have high Dexterity Scores if they've trained in those skills, they're not limited to something because of their race.
If both races work on stealing purses from citizens then both have in my mind earned the +2 to DEX if they want it; I'm not going to say only the halfling gets it because they're a halfling and that's currently a suggestion the book gives at this time.
The PHB itself says it's not some holy grail so if you don't like something change it and by doing so why have bonuses tied to anything?!
As others have said just make it starting bonuses for being a PC and just roll your stats and then get a +2 and a +1 to stats of your choice up to a maximum choice of two stats.
Again this eliminates all imbalances from humans getting basically six increases just for being human and half-elves getting 3 choices while the rest get only 2. It also takes out debates over inconsistencies as to why X race would get bonuses to a stat but someone who actually trained to be a cleric wouldn't get a bonus because Wisdom isn't one of their currently predetermined stats. Wisdom is taught by learning as you go so if you're just a born new baby how could you have more Wisdom than someone who's been around...and again this stat alone shows why stats shouldn't be racial because Wisdom is something you get over time not something you're instantly born with and the same for intelligence!
Racial bonuses do not make logical sense.
If you want to tie stats to something it should at least be class as classes specialize in things and then so of course you'd be more dexterous as a Rogue compared to a Paladin - being nimble is part of your craft. Paladins are arguably stronger than rogues because they carry around again heavy armor all day! Barbarians are known for being hearty so of course they'd get Constitution bonuses and so on! Its not perfect either honestly when building your ideal character, but it makes more sense than some race getting a bonuses just for being that race.
At least in my opinion.
Looking at human in particular, the +1 to all stats is kind of interesting to take literally. So all humans are almost as dexterous as elves on average and just as intelligent on average as high elves, or just as wise on average as a wood elf. Humans on average are almost as strong as a half orc and the same constitution wise as half orcs, on average. Instead of being adaptable the average human is just kind of good at everything. Which is part of why the asis as is are kind of silly to me to take too seriously. And flavor wise, just far less interesting than the actual racial features.
Humans on average match the constitution of half orcs, but they dont' get savage attacks and relentless endurance for example. For me, this allows people to play the class/race combo they want without having to take a penalty to their stats, while also keeping the much more interesting, flavorful features to differentiate races. The ones that actually make sense as racial features when compared to the baseline +1 to all stats human.
Oh my...
Half-elves are not elves. Check out https://www.dndbeyond.com/races/3-elf . Note there is no sub or variant race called "Half".
Easy peasy. The Half-elf uses a rolled 3, or arrayed 8, or assigns 0 points to Charisma, & has a 5 or 10 total. The Half-orc with a racial +0 assigns a 11 or higher roll/array spot, or spends 3+ points and has a 11+ Charisma. The thing they worked on pre-campaign gets assigned more/better scores, regardless of any racial effects, and has a higher end result.
As to the rest... you're able to type all this out on the Internet because humans gets the biggest bonus to Intelligence of any species on the planet. The best counter-argument to your position, is you.
"To humans, half-elves look like elves, and to elves, they look human." "As if to emphasize that they don’t really fit in to either society, half-elves raised among humans are often given elven names, and those raised among elves often take human names." - PHB
Given that the only people using this site are humans, I think it makes perfect sense for us to say, half-elves are elves. ;)
Anyway, this debate sucks.
But then whats the other ability you want to go off? Dexterity?
You're just in the exact same situation just with a different score.
Also, I understand your points about class based ASI's. However, I think just having whatever choice you want works better instead because even having it tied to class has some limitations. If you want to play a dex based fighter (as you mentioned above), and the class based ASI is mostly strength or something else. Then you will be limited nearly as much as with racial tied ASI's. In my opinion, class tied ASI's could severely mess with irregular builds, and people who go off irregular stats compared to class.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I fully agree "floating ASIs" or however you want to phrase them are best because you are able to closest build your character as you can; you want to make a "broken" class because it's your vision of the character do it! You want to max stats the best you can to feel like the superhero? Do it!
I was just saying if they just have to be tied to something for some reason it makes more sense for it to be tied to your class as a bonus rather than your race because your race doesn't define your personal skill set. You can argue neither does your class but if you train with swords and are good at hitting you'd probably be a good Fighter or Monk. A race is just the starting cosmetic skin if you will - yes some choices give you bonuses such as darkvision or wings but they're just your looks not what you can do.
So yeah, I'm class over race if Wizards just wants them tied to things for game reasons, but I'm very much personally on team "Pick What You Want From The Start"! 🙂
Again I think there should just be a text box post how to roll stats that says something like...
Congratulations; you've now rolled up your first character!
As a future powerful being in the realm your skills are more advanced than those of the common folk. You can assign bonuses to your stats to reflect this either by taking a +2 and a +1 and putting them into two different stats; ex: you can add +2 to your Strength for harder hits and +1 to Dexterity to better dodge oncoming hits. Or you can add +1 to three various stats; ex: +1 to Wisdom, +1 to Charisma, and a +1 to Constituon will benefit any Cleric.
Alternatively, you can take a +3 and put it into one stat but this starting total may not exceed 20!
Example: Your rolled total of 14 + 3 would give you a 17 for a starting Intelligence score (see Modifiers on page X to see the coronation number you get for this total).
Because I also very much think it's only fair to allow a +3 in the game if you're going to bust up the +2 into ones and spread them out.
I for one also like the racial ASIs and hope we get them back in 5.5e. I think there should also be an option to take a floating ASI too for those who prefer it. Give us both options and let us choose which one we use.
I think the ideal scenario for starting ASIs would be:
- First, your class tells you what's the most useful for it
- Then, your background tells you what ASIs you most likely would have
- Then, your race tells you which background you most likely would have
- Finally, it says "do whatever you want though."
Example: You look at Half-Elf and it says "usually wanderers (usually Wis or Con) or sages (usually Int)." You like the sound of sage. You look at Bard and it says "you probably want Cha," and you agree, so you decide to pick Half-elf Sage Bard and just put your ASI into Cha. Since the sage background values Int, you figure it makes sense to make Int your next highest stat. You decide that your character gets restless studying alone all the time, and prefers to go out into the world and meet people; however, his training as a sage still colors his decisions. By golly, that's a character.
When I mentioned class based ASI’s instead of tied to race I meant it as floating ASI’s that you pick when you select your class, along with class proficiencies like skills, etc. so if you go fighter you pick your proficiencies, your fighting style, and your +2/+1. You want to put them in CHA and WIS be my guest.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?