I think stat bonuses should be as follows: +1 racial to represent nature (dwarves are tougher than elves, elves are more dextrous, etc), +1 based on your background to represent nuture (a dwarven acrobat would have learned to be more dexterous, etc), +1 based on your class to represent your own interest and allow every character to be good in their class.
Floating racial stats are no longer racial if every race gets the same thing, at that point it's just character creation and you may as well just drop them entirely. Racial bonuses are supposed indicate how a race is unique not how they are the same.
I think stat bonuses should be as follows: +1 racial to represent nature (dwarves are tougher than elves, elves are more dextrous, etc), +1 based on your background to represent nuture (a dwarven acrobat would have learned to be more dexterous, etc), +1 based on your class to represent your own interest and allow every character to be good in their class.
Floating racial stats are no longer racial if every race gets the same thing, at that point it's just character creation and you may as well just drop them entirely. Racial bonuses are supposed indicate how a race is unique not how they are the same.
My 2 cents
Or, here's a though, D&D could recognize that it's not really based on 1-30 in each stat but rather -5 to +10 and stop pretending odd scores matter.
I think stat bonuses should be as follows: +1 racial to represent nature (dwarves are tougher than elves, elves are more dextrous, etc), +1 based on your background to represent nuture (a dwarven acrobat would have learned to be more dexterous, etc), +1 based on your class to represent your own interest and allow every character to be good in their class.
Floating racial stats are no longer racial if every race gets the same thing, at that point it's just character creation and you may as well just drop them entirely. Racial bonuses are supposed indicate how a race is unique not how they are the same.
My 2 cents
Racial feats show how races are different. Racial ASIs make no sense. This has been discussed ad nauseum here on the forums, but here we are again. Two wood elves can be entirely different. One may like to read, and the other likes to perform in front of others. Neither of them like to run around and work on their acrobatic skill. Why should they get a +2 to dex, or any bonus to dex? They both still have darkvision, because that is an inherent feature of being an elf.
I think stat bonuses should be as follows: +1 racial to represent nature (dwarves are tougher than elves, elves are more dextrous, etc), +1 based on your background to represent nuture (a dwarven acrobat would have learned to be more dexterous, etc), +1 based on your class to represent your own interest and allow every character to be good in their class.
Floating racial stats are no longer racial if every race gets the same thing, at that point it's just character creation and you may as well just drop them entirely. Racial bonuses are supposed indicate how a race is unique not how they are the same.
My 2 cents
Or, here's a though, D&D could recognize that it's not really based on 1-30 in each stat but rather -5 to +10 and stop pretending odd scores matter.
Well there are some applications to it. Strength score is used for some things, intelligence score is used in a feat, and the way it is now leads to some scenarios where you can do things like bump two odd numbers up with one ASI, or take a half asi and a feat to bump up a modifier and get an extra benefit etc.
I think stat bonuses should be as follows: +1 racial to represent nature (dwarves are tougher than elves, elves are more dextrous, etc), +1 based on your background to represent nuture (a dwarven acrobat would have learned to be more dexterous, etc), +1 based on your class to represent your own interest and allow every character to be good in their class.
Floating racial stats are no longer racial if every race gets the same thing, at that point it's just character creation and you may as well just drop them entirely. Racial bonuses are supposed indicate how a race is unique not how they are the same.
My 2 cents
Racial feats show how races are different. Racial ASIs make no sense. This has been discussed ad nauseum here on the forums, but here we are again. Two wood elves can be entirely different. One may like to read, and the other likes to perform in front of others. Neither of them like to run around and work on their acrobatic skill. Why should they get a +2 to dex, or any bonus to dex? They both still have darkvision, because that is an inherent feature of being an elf.
It's especially odd to me when comparing the +1 race bonuses against the standard +1 to everything human. Are wood elves really more wise than average if they have the same average wisdom as a human? Same for high elves and intelligence etc. Even the +2 bonuses only mean they are slight better than a human at it. Racial features and feats do a better job IMO as you say at showing the differences. An elf having the minimum possible advantage in dexterity over a standard human doesn't really say much, but mask of the wild, being able to hide while just lightly obscured, says something about a wood elf's ability to stealth and hide etc.
I think stat bonuses should be as follows: +1 racial to represent nature (dwarves are tougher than elves, elves are more dextrous, etc), +1 based on your background to represent nuture (a dwarven acrobat would have learned to be more dexterous, etc), +1 based on your class to represent your own interest and allow every character to be good in their class.
Floating racial stats are no longer racial if every race gets the same thing, at that point it's just character creation and you may as well just drop them entirely. Racial bonuses are supposed indicate how a race is unique not how they are the same.
My 2 cents
Or, here's a though, D&D could recognize that it's not really based on 1-30 in each stat but rather -5 to +10 and stop pretending odd scores matter.
Well there are some applications to it. Strength score is used for some things, intelligence score is used in a feat, and the way it is now leads to some scenarios where you can do things like bump two odd numbers up with one ASI, or take a half asi and a feat to bump up a modifier and get an extra benefit etc.
I think stat bonuses should be as follows: +1 racial to represent nature (dwarves are tougher than elves, elves are more dextrous, etc), +1 based on your background to represent nuture (a dwarven acrobat would have learned to be more dexterous, etc), +1 based on your class to represent your own interest and allow every character to be good in their class.
Floating racial stats are no longer racial if every race gets the same thing, at that point it's just character creation and you may as well just drop them entirely. Racial bonuses are supposed indicate how a race is unique not how they are the same.
My 2 cents
Racial feats show how races are different. Racial ASIs make no sense. This has been discussed ad nauseum here on the forums, but here we are again. Two wood elves can be entirely different. One may like to read, and the other likes to perform in front of others. Neither of them like to run around and work on their acrobatic skill. Why should they get a +2 to dex, or any bonus to dex? They both still have darkvision, because that is an inherent feature of being an elf.
It's especially odd to me when comparing the +1 race bonuses against the standard +1 to everything human. Are wood elves really more wise than average if they have the same average wisdom as a human? Same for high elves and intelligence etc. Even the +2 bonuses only mean they are slight better than a human at it. Racial features and feats do a better job IMO as you say at showing the differences. An elf having the minimum possible advantage in dexterity over a standard human doesn't really say much, but mask of the wild, being able to hide while just lightly obscured, says something about a wood elf's ability to stealth and hide etc.
That's exactly my point. Every time racial ASIs are debated here, people talk about how getting rid of them "makes all races the same", which isn't even remotely true. Things besides ASIs differentiate the races. Making ASIs standard just allows for less diversity within the races.
I think stat bonuses should be as follows: +1 racial to represent nature (dwarves are tougher than elves, elves are more dextrous, etc), +1 based on your background to represent nuture (a dwarven acrobat would have learned to be more dexterous, etc), +1 based on your class to represent your own interest and allow every character to be good in their class.
Floating racial stats are no longer racial if every race gets the same thing, at that point it's just character creation and you may as well just drop them entirely. Racial bonuses are supposed indicate how a race is unique not how they are the same.
My 2 cents
Or, here's a though, D&D could recognize that it's not really based on 1-30 in each stat but rather -5 to +10 and stop pretending odd scores matter.
Well there are some applications to it. Strength score is used for some things, intelligence score is used in a feat, and the way it is now leads to some scenarios where you can do things like bump two odd numbers up with one ASI, or take a half asi and a feat to bump up a modifier and get an extra benefit etc.
I think stat bonuses should be as follows: +1 racial to represent nature (dwarves are tougher than elves, elves are more dextrous, etc), +1 based on your background to represent nuture (a dwarven acrobat would have learned to be more dexterous, etc), +1 based on your class to represent your own interest and allow every character to be good in their class.
Floating racial stats are no longer racial if every race gets the same thing, at that point it's just character creation and you may as well just drop them entirely. Racial bonuses are supposed indicate how a race is unique not how they are the same.
My 2 cents
Racial feats show how races are different. Racial ASIs make no sense. This has been discussed ad nauseum here on the forums, but here we are again. Two wood elves can be entirely different. One may like to read, and the other likes to perform in front of others. Neither of them like to run around and work on their acrobatic skill. Why should they get a +2 to dex, or any bonus to dex? They both still have darkvision, because that is an inherent feature of being an elf.
It's especially odd to me when comparing the +1 race bonuses against the standard +1 to everything human. Are wood elves really more wise than average if they have the same average wisdom as a human? Same for high elves and intelligence etc. Even the +2 bonuses only mean they are slight better than a human at it. Racial features and feats do a better job IMO as you say at showing the differences. An elf having the minimum possible advantage in dexterity over a standard human doesn't really say much, but mask of the wild, being able to hide while just lightly obscured, says something about a wood elf's ability to stealth and hide etc.
That's exactly my point. Every time racial ASIs are debated here, people talk about how getting rid of them "makes all races the same", which isn't even remotely true. Things besides ASIs differentiate the races. Making ASIs standard just allows for less diversity within the races.
Exactly, each race is very different, even with floating ASI's.
Yuan-Ti still get poison resistance, Aaracockra can still fly.
Each race remains unique and different. Just because you change one element of races in D&D doesn't mean you change them all.
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 think stat bonuses should be as follows: +1 racial to represent nature (dwarves are tougher than elves, elves are more dextrous, etc), +1 based on your background to represent nuture (a dwarven acrobat would have learned to be more dexterous, etc), +1 based on your class to represent your own interest and allow every character to be good in their class.
Floating racial stats are no longer racial if every race gets the same thing, at that point it's just character creation and you may as well just drop them entirely. Racial bonuses are supposed indicate how a race is unique not how they are the same.
My 2 cents
Or, here's a though, D&D could recognize that it's not really based on 1-30 in each stat but rather -5 to +10 and stop pretending odd scores matter.
Well there are some applications to it. Strength score is used for some things, intelligence score is used in a feat, and the way it is now leads to some scenarios where you can do things like bump two odd numbers up with one ASI, or take a half asi and a feat to bump up a modifier and get an extra benefit etc.
I think stat bonuses should be as follows: +1 racial to represent nature (dwarves are tougher than elves, elves are more dextrous, etc), +1 based on your background to represent nuture (a dwarven acrobat would have learned to be more dexterous, etc), +1 based on your class to represent your own interest and allow every character to be good in their class.
Floating racial stats are no longer racial if every race gets the same thing, at that point it's just character creation and you may as well just drop them entirely. Racial bonuses are supposed indicate how a race is unique not how they are the same.
My 2 cents
Racial feats show how races are different. Racial ASIs make no sense. This has been discussed ad nauseum here on the forums, but here we are again. Two wood elves can be entirely different. One may like to read, and the other likes to perform in front of others. Neither of them like to run around and work on their acrobatic skill. Why should they get a +2 to dex, or any bonus to dex? They both still have darkvision, because that is an inherent feature of being an elf.
It's especially odd to me when comparing the +1 race bonuses against the standard +1 to everything human. Are wood elves really more wise than average if they have the same average wisdom as a human? Same for high elves and intelligence etc. Even the +2 bonuses only mean they are slight better than a human at it. Racial features and feats do a better job IMO as you say at showing the differences. An elf having the minimum possible advantage in dexterity over a standard human doesn't really say much, but mask of the wild, being able to hide while just lightly obscured, says something about a wood elf's ability to stealth and hide etc.
That's exactly my point. Every time racial ASIs are debated here, people talk about how getting rid of them "makes all races the same", which isn't even remotely true. Things besides ASIs differentiate the races. Making ASIs standard just allows for less diversity within the races.
You mean like longevity, height, speed or alignment? Oh wait...
I think stat bonuses should be as follows: +1 racial to represent nature (dwarves are tougher than elves, elves are more dextrous, etc), +1 based on your background to represent nuture (a dwarven acrobat would have learned to be more dexterous, etc), +1 based on your class to represent your own interest and allow every character to be good in their class.
Floating racial stats are no longer racial if every race gets the same thing, at that point it's just character creation and you may as well just drop them entirely. Racial bonuses are supposed indicate how a race is unique not how they are the same.
My 2 cents
I'd like similar, but without one based on your class. As some people like making things like DEXadins and STRangers.
I think stat bonuses should be as follows: +1 racial to represent nature (dwarves are tougher than elves, elves are more dextrous, etc), +1 based on your background to represent nuture (a dwarven acrobat would have learned to be more dexterous, etc), +1 based on your class to represent your own interest and allow every character to be good in their class.
Floating racial stats are no longer racial if every race gets the same thing, at that point it's just character creation and you may as well just drop them entirely. Racial bonuses are supposed indicate how a race is unique not how they are the same.
My 2 cents
I'd like similar, but without one based on your class. As some people like making things like DEXadins and STRangers.
+ 1 Based on race.
+ 1 Based on Background.
+ 1 free floating to place where you want.
Nothing much, just wanted to +1 this as my free floating ASI.
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
With all the customs and what not, the Humans where do they end in the new book? they got a +1 in everything but still are the worst class in the game cuz no redeeming racial feature.
That's exactly my point. Every time racial ASIs are debated here, people talk about how getting rid of them "makes all races the same", which isn't even remotely true. Things besides ASIs differentiate the races. Making ASIs standard just allows for less diversity within the races.
You mean like longevity, height, speed or alignment? Oh wait...
Alignment deserves to be attached to background. Background should be (loosely) attached to race. Attaching alignment directly to race is sloppy. It's reflective of a time when characters were seen as more disposable, and certain nuances were ignored in the name of streamlining the process for repeated use, I would reckon. Or it could just be racist. Who knows, doesn't matter anyway.
But lifespan, height and weight, and walking speed, I can get on board with retaining. There's a difference, I think, between "some races are better suited to manual labor than to self governance" and "the point of goliaths is they're big and strong, you know, like Goliath." But it is a touchy subject and I don't really mind erring on the side of caution. Even so, I think a big part of the magic of the game's fantasy lies in some of the things that are getting cut.
I guess it just falls to DMs and players to keep the magic alive in a more responsible and nuanced way than a corporation is capable of doing.
With all the customs and what not, the Humans where do they end in the new book? they got a +1 in everything but still are the worst class in the game cuz no redeeming racial feature.
The species from the PHB have not been updated yet. So humans amongst others are still using the old stats.
Racial ASI is good, and I'm pretty disappointed it seems to be going away. I think the +2 should absolutely stay as a foundation for what that species naturally excels at- tabaxi are super dexterous, so they should get that +2 from that, barring something significant that would make it be otherwise. The +1, imo, can totally be turned into a background-based or player choice bonus.
I think there's a few language things that can change in 5.5e, notably the use of the term "races" for different player ancestries/species. I feel that calling them races has led to a lot more strife and argument than if they were called something else. Ancestries also isn't a perfect solution, and "player species" just sounds off-genre, so it's a tricky situation, but I think either option is better than "races".
I'd love for a proper psionic class. Not one that uses spells from a spell list, but one that uses a psionics system. It doesn't even have to be as extensive as normal spellcasting, but it should have effects similar to magic. Let it be a class that has some psychic resource to juggle, or just a straightforward set of abilities, a proper psychic class sounds great.
A HUGE one I want to see for 5.5 has to do with homebrewing. If homebrew is going to be such a fundamental part of the game, there needs to be an expansive list of guidelines and rules in place. Naturally, as with all TTRPGs, they're just guidelines, and it's totally fine to draw outside of the lines, but so much homebrew feels so wildly disconnected from the rest of the ruleset that it feels like it isn't D&D 5e any more. The game - D&D 5e - is the rule system that it uses. Throw that aside or replace/implement too many rules and you're playing a home game with a few rules from 5e. It's a Ship of Theseus situation, and in this case, it's a different ship.
And, finally, make monsters make sense. They aren't hard to understand as it is, but the way 5e statblocks works just feels bad, and CR is an AWFUL system as it currently stands. Maybe it's because the power creep for player choices over the years, but the CR listed on a monster never feels accurate. One encounter that's considered deadly might be a cakewalk for a party, but an easy encounter for the same party could give them a ton of trouble. Bounded accuracy numbers were a mistake
I think stat bonuses should be as follows: +1 racial to represent nature (dwarves are tougher than elves, elves are more dextrous, etc), +1 based on your background to represent nuture (a dwarven acrobat would have learned to be more dexterous, etc), +1 based on your class to represent your own interest and allow every character to be good in their class.
Floating racial stats are no longer racial if every race gets the same thing, at that point it's just character creation and you may as well just drop them entirely. Racial bonuses are supposed indicate how a race is unique not how they are the same.
My 2 cents
I'd like similar, but without one based on your class. As some people like making things like DEXadins and STRangers.
+ 1 Based on race.
+ 1 Based on Background.
+ 1 free floating to place where you want.
That's an interesting idea, but it would increase optimizitation of characters because they would want to pick "This backround and race will go well with this class!"
It would limit your choices if you want to create a character with high ability scores, and give people lower ability scores just because they went with their favorite race and backround. It would also probably increase minmaxing and allow you to get an 18 in one score at level one.
I think it would just double the issue since there are now even more important factors that impact your ASI's, and it would certainly restrict your amount of decent choices for a character build.
I think stat bonuses should be as follows: +1 racial to represent nature (dwarves are tougher than elves, elves are more dextrous, etc), +1 based on your background to represent nuture (a dwarven acrobat would have learned to be more dexterous, etc), +1 based on your class to represent your own interest and allow every character to be good in their class.
Floating racial stats are no longer racial if every race gets the same thing, at that point it's just character creation and you may as well just drop them entirely. Racial bonuses are supposed indicate how a race is unique not how they are the same.
My 2 cents
Or, here's a though, D&D could recognize that it's not really based on 1-30 in each stat but rather -5 to +10 and stop pretending odd scores matter.
Racial feats show how races are different. Racial ASIs make no sense. This has been discussed ad nauseum here on the forums, but here we are again. Two wood elves can be entirely different. One may like to read, and the other likes to perform in front of others. Neither of them like to run around and work on their acrobatic skill. Why should they get a +2 to dex, or any bonus to dex? They both still have darkvision, because that is an inherent feature of being an elf.
Well there are some applications to it. Strength score is used for some things, intelligence score is used in a feat, and the way it is now leads to some scenarios where you can do things like bump two odd numbers up with one ASI, or take a half asi and a feat to bump up a modifier and get an extra benefit etc.
It's especially odd to me when comparing the +1 race bonuses against the standard +1 to everything human. Are wood elves really more wise than average if they have the same average wisdom as a human? Same for high elves and intelligence etc. Even the +2 bonuses only mean they are slight better than a human at it. Racial features and feats do a better job IMO as you say at showing the differences. An elf having the minimum possible advantage in dexterity over a standard human doesn't really say much, but mask of the wild, being able to hide while just lightly obscured, says something about a wood elf's ability to stealth and hide etc.
That's exactly my point. Every time racial ASIs are debated here, people talk about how getting rid of them "makes all races the same", which isn't even remotely true. Things besides ASIs differentiate the races. Making ASIs standard just allows for less diversity within the races.
Just say no to floating ability score modifiers.
Yes. And so are humans. Because humans are not average at everything, they are slightly good at everything.
Exactly, each race is very different, even with floating ASI's.
Yuan-Ti still get poison resistance, Aaracockra can still fly.
Each race remains unique and different. Just because you change one element of races in D&D doesn't mean you change them all.
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.You mean like longevity, height, speed or alignment? Oh wait...
I'd like similar, but without one based on your class. As some people like making things like DEXadins and STRangers.
+ 1 Based on race.
+ 1 Based on Background.
+ 1 free floating to place where you want.
Nothing much, just wanted to +1 this as my free floating ASI.
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
With all the customs and what not, the Humans where do they end in the new book? they got a +1 in everything but still are the worst class in the game cuz no redeeming racial feature.
Alignment deserves to be attached to background. Background should be (loosely) attached to race. Attaching alignment directly to race is sloppy. It's reflective of a time when characters were seen as more disposable, and certain nuances were ignored in the name of streamlining the process for repeated use, I would reckon. Or it could just be racist. Who knows, doesn't matter anyway.
But lifespan, height and weight, and walking speed, I can get on board with retaining. There's a difference, I think, between "some races are better suited to manual labor than to self governance" and "the point of goliaths is they're big and strong, you know, like Goliath." But it is a touchy subject and I don't really mind erring on the side of caution. Even so, I think a big part of the magic of the game's fantasy lies in some of the things that are getting cut.
I guess it just falls to DMs and players to keep the magic alive in a more responsible and nuanced way than a corporation is capable of doing.
The species from the PHB have not been updated yet. So humans amongst others are still using the old stats.
Racial ASI is good, and I'm pretty disappointed it seems to be going away. I think the +2 should absolutely stay as a foundation for what that species naturally excels at- tabaxi are super dexterous, so they should get that +2 from that, barring something significant that would make it be otherwise. The +1, imo, can totally be turned into a background-based or player choice bonus.
I think there's a few language things that can change in 5.5e, notably the use of the term "races" for different player ancestries/species. I feel that calling them races has led to a lot more strife and argument than if they were called something else. Ancestries also isn't a perfect solution, and "player species" just sounds off-genre, so it's a tricky situation, but I think either option is better than "races".
I'd love for a proper psionic class. Not one that uses spells from a spell list, but one that uses a psionics system. It doesn't even have to be as extensive as normal spellcasting, but it should have effects similar to magic. Let it be a class that has some psychic resource to juggle, or just a straightforward set of abilities, a proper psychic class sounds great.
A HUGE one I want to see for 5.5 has to do with homebrewing. If homebrew is going to be such a fundamental part of the game, there needs to be an expansive list of guidelines and rules in place. Naturally, as with all TTRPGs, they're just guidelines, and it's totally fine to draw outside of the lines, but so much homebrew feels so wildly disconnected from the rest of the ruleset that it feels like it isn't D&D 5e any more. The game - D&D 5e - is the rule system that it uses. Throw that aside or replace/implement too many rules and you're playing a home game with a few rules from 5e. It's a Ship of Theseus situation, and in this case, it's a different ship.
And, finally, make monsters make sense. They aren't hard to understand as it is, but the way 5e statblocks works just feels bad, and CR is an AWFUL system as it currently stands. Maybe it's because the power creep for player choices over the years, but the CR listed on a monster never feels accurate. One encounter that's considered deadly might be a cakewalk for a party, but an easy encounter for the same party could give them a ton of trouble.
Bounded accuracy numbers were a mistakeThat's an interesting idea, but it would increase optimizitation of characters because they would want to pick "This backround and race will go well with this class!"
It would limit your choices if you want to create a character with high ability scores, and give people lower ability scores just because they went with their favorite race and backround. It would also probably increase minmaxing and allow you to get an 18 in one score at level one.
I think it would just double the issue since there are now even more important factors that impact your ASI's, and it would certainly restrict your amount of decent choices for a character build.
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.