I enjoyed when races had negative ability scores for the species/races, it added a good roll play perspective and interesting aspect.  I like to see a optional feature for species/races where they can get a -2 in a ability score of thier choice but can gain a feat, boon, +2 increase in another ability score.  This would apply to min max players but also to roll play and think could reflect certain backstorys created by player.

Likely lean to free feat or boon over the +2 increase, but being able to be applied to any species/race could open things up and folks will have to consider where they dump the -2 in thier scores.

What do others think of this idea?  Should it be something for WotC to consider?

Having the ability to put a -2 into a stat in exchange for a free feat is fine as a house rule, but it's not all that interesting because it just means that everyone will be putting it into whatever their class's dump stat is.

Hard Pass.

Two problems with this:

1. It allows more blatantly powerful min-maxing options and "Making things overpowered for the min-maxers" is typically not a good reason for introducing a new mechanic.

2. Why does this have to be tied to what species you are? Especially with mental ability scores, it really doesn't make sense that your species would allow you to be better or worse in that regard when the optional negative scores could be tied to any other part of your character.

yeah nah this is a hard pass for me too, even as a powergamer, i dont want something thats gonna make it easier to be broken

A flaw should be an actual flaw for character development purposes. However, I could see there being a kind of Faustian trade-off.

For example, in exchange for a -2, or some other flaw, you start with a plot relevant magic item. It would give you a slight bump at the start, but would end up getting replaced later either way. Or maybe you get a finite number of "Charges" that you can spend like inspiration dice. It could make an impact at important moments, but would eventually dry up.

Could be munchkin-y for a one-shot (In which case, don't offer it), but would balance out over an actual campaign.

Edit: Whatever the solution, the equation should exchange power for intrigue, and never the other way around.

Edit2: Or, make the flaw in a stat of the DMs choice. (Default to primary casting stat, or Con)

The issue with 'Flaw' systems tends to be twofold.

-Either the flaw never comes up or is otherwise inconsequential, i.e. "I take a further -2 to my dump stat", at which point the 'Flaw' is more-or-less free power.
-The flaw comes up all the time, the player never stops roleplaying their flaw, and everybody's sick of it after three sessions.

In real life, people seek to redress or minimize their flaws (most of the time), but doing so in an RPG gets you accused of being an evil cheating baby-eating powergaming tryhard.  The opposite of that - wallowing in your flaw and making sure nobody ever forgets that you have a six in Intelligence - swiftly grows even more infuriating.  The Internet as an aggregate whole is extremely bad at moderation and in-between; the throttle exists at 0 or 120%, there are no other states.  I would caution adding "Flaw" systems to 5e at one's own risk.  It is not likely to go well.

Personally, I would love to see some negative traits like sunlight sensitivity be brought back as optional additions to a species.  They can provide fun roleplay potential and add a little bit of flavour to the world itself.  I am glad they are gone as the default, but would be neat to have them for folks who would want them.

I disagree with additional -2 penalties for boons in game. Those feel sterile - unlike tailored flaws such as sunlight sensitivity - and, as others have mentioned, really don’t make a difference in actual gameplay since you’ll have a party backing you up most of the time. Being 5% less likely to succeed in a check you probably were not going to be doing in the first place is hardly a penalty. 

Sunlight Sensitivity has been an important plot point for my Umbragen (drow) character in my ongoing Eberron game.  Only recently has someone gifted her with a Knave's eye patch, and she's still exploring all the ways it changes how she operates out in the sun-drowned surface lands.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

The issue with 'Flaw' systems tends to be twofold.

-Either the flaw never comes up or is otherwise inconsequential, i.e. "I take a further -2 to my dump stat", at which point the 'Flaw' is more-or-less free power.
-The flaw comes up all the time, the player never stops roleplaying their flaw, and everybody's sick of it after three sessions.

 Well, stat reduction is broad enough that it's likely to come up, it's just that +2/-2 is hilariously broken. On point buy, you'll probably be reasonably balanced if a -2 to a stat gives you +1 point.

I don't hate it. The lowest you get with point buy is 8, which isn't especially low. Still, go too low and it causes problems. I feel like you could go to 6 and it would be okay, but maybe not. I imagine they tested for it back in the day. Maybe things have shifted in a way that now it would be better, but I don't really see why.

I like characters having problems, but if you make it mechanical, you end up with weirdness. This was one of the useful possibilities of the Ideals, Flaws and Bonds idea. Having a flaw you took from the official book, that goes in an official place on your character sheet, lends it a perceived legitimacy, even though it doesn't technically do anything. You could extend that out to more physical things, too. You don't have to have -5ft move speed, you could just have "My ankle never healed fully." You don't have to have disadvantage on Perception checks in the sun, you could just have "I get headaches from anything brighter than a campfire." Realistically you can't have many of these or they lose impact, but you were never going to have very many in the first place.

I think certain kinds of campaigns could benefit from adding or subtracting types of character traits. A campaign like the early part of Avernus could have additional personality flaws, while Frostmaiden might have additional physical flaws. Mad Mage has no use for bonds, but Dragon Heist might be better with an extra bond. Etc.

That's how I would handle it anyway. I'd let players lower their stats freely with no benefit or an extremely minor benefit, or I'd reduce the 8 from point buy to 7 or 6. I'd add flaws if it made sense to do that.

I tend to feel like innate plus or negatives are mostly unneeded on most fantasy-species to play out the fantasy. 

I WOULD like optional negatives, but would prefer they come through ribbon type features. Scores don't tend to influence roleplay quite as much as written effects do. 

I think certain kinds of campaigns could benefit from adding or subtracting types of character traits. A campaign like the early part of Avernus could have additional personality flaws, while Frostmaiden might have additional physical flaws. Mad Mage has no use for bonds, but Dragon Heist might be better with an extra bond. Etc.

Yeah definitely think focusing on campaign specific weakness design is the way to go. Takes it from a vague worldbuildy "These kind of people are always crap at X" and brings it more towards "How do we make good scenes with these weaknesses"

 This is not something I would be interested in and I don't think WotC is either. But you can implement this in your games if you like.

TBH, this is an opportunity for Wizards to make decent bucks, I think.  OneD&D comes out and all the Race/Species/Whateverwordfits are vanilla as we have now.  No ASI up or down, flat stats, you pick increases.  Books are released, with collections of the PC options, with lore from several different worlds, to show how disparate they are in different areas.  These specific cultures, from each realm, TEND heavily toward a certain stereotype.  In one realm, say Goblins tend to be very small, nimble and highly intelligent.  They are weak, however and somewhat frail, so boosts to Dex and Int or Wis and a penalty to Str and/or Con.  In the next world, they are very hardy and healthy and much stronger than they appear, but a little slow-witted and generally awkward.  Boosts to Con/Srt and penalties to Wis/Cha.

Spreading out the PC options and showing a background of where they are from and why their people are the way they are (Imagine towering Goliaths with a much higher than average Intelligence, but a weaker Con because study and learning is more important to their society than physical efforts) opens the door for literally tons of pre-generated backstories.  It opens the potential for Wizards to introduce tons of new worlds, people and monsters.  It's a veritable cash cow waiting to be milked.

Quote from Falwith >>

TBH, this is an opportunity for Wizards to make decent bucks, I think.  OneD&D comes out and all the Race/Species/Whateverwordfits are vanilla as we have now.  No ASI up or down, flat stats, you pick increases.  Books are released, with collections of the PC options, with lore from several different worlds, to show how disparate they are in different areas.  These specific cultures, from each realm, TEND heavily toward a certain stereotype.  In one realm, say Goblins tend to be very small, nimble and highly intelligent.  They are weak, however and somewhat frail, so boosts to Dex and Int or Wis and a penalty to Str and/or Con.  In the next world, they are very hardy and healthy and much stronger than they appear, but a little slow-witted and generally awkward.  Boosts to Con/Srt and penalties to Wis/Cha.

Spreading out the PC options and showing a background of where they are from and why their people are the way they are (Imagine towering Goliaths with a much higher than average Intelligence, but a weaker Con because study and learning is more important to their society than physical efforts) opens the door for literally tons of pre-generated backstories.  It opens the potential for Wizards to introduce tons of new worlds, people and monsters.  It's a veritable cash cow waiting to be milked.

 Finally, somebody gets it.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Personally, I would love to see some negative traits like sunlight sensitivity be brought back as optional additions to a species.  They can provide fun roleplay potential and add a little bit of flavour to the world itself.  I am glad they are gone as the default, but would be neat to have them for folks who would want them.

I disagree with additional -2 penalties for boons in game. Those feel sterile - unlike tailored flaws such as sunlight sensitivity - and, as others have mentioned, really don’t make a difference in actual gameplay since you’ll have a party backing you up most of the time. Being 5% less likely to succeed in a check you probably were not going to be doing in the first place is hardly a penalty. 

 I like this idea, but I'd also like to mention that Sunlight Sensitivity in particular is not a good downside (or bad for the player). In many campaigns, SS can be avoided by just not fighting in the sun. And its downsides just don't apply in a typical dungeon setting. It's why I only allow the MMotM kobold, rather than the old one.

A fairly common implementation of flaws in current era RPGs is that they only grant a benefit when they actually penalize you in play, at which point they give an expendable resource (e.g. Inspiration). Thus, you would note 'sunlight sensitivity' on your character sheet, and if a fight actually occurred in the sunlight, you'd have disadvantage, but also gain inspiration (which is a net loser if you just use it to cancel the penalty for sunlight in that combat, but you can save it and spend it later). There are drawbacks to this model (it's somewhat more effort to track in play, and deciding whether something is actually worth a point is a judgment call), but it does get rid of disadvantages being free points.

Quote from Falwith >>

TBH, this is an opportunity for Wizards to make decent bucks, I think.  OneD&D comes out and all the Race/Species/Whateverwordfits are vanilla as we have now.  No ASI up or down, flat stats, you pick increases.  Books are released, with collections of the PC options, with lore from several different worlds, to show how disparate they are in different areas.  These specific cultures, from each realm, TEND heavily toward a certain stereotype.  In one realm, say Goblins tend to be very small, nimble and highly intelligent.  They are weak, however and somewhat frail, so boosts to Dex and Int or Wis and a penalty to Str and/or Con.  In the next world, they are very hardy and healthy and much stronger than they appear, but a little slow-witted and generally awkward.  Boosts to Con/Srt and penalties to Wis/Cha.

Spreading out the PC options and showing a background of where they are from and why their people are the way they are (Imagine towering Goliaths with a much higher than average Intelligence, but a weaker Con because study and learning is more important to their society than physical efforts) opens the door for literally tons of pre-generated backstories.  It opens the potential for Wizards to introduce tons of new worlds, people and monsters.  It's a veritable cash cow waiting to be milked.

 I think you're greatly overestimating how many people would actually pay money to get that vs some other book.

As others have said, the -2 would just be put into the PCs existing dump stat, so it really isn't worth reintroducing it as a concept.

Is 6 vs 8 in a stat really going to make that much difference?

The idea isn't bad - the issue is how ability scores are used and optimized.  They've hit a point where negatives are too big and any positive to get you to an even number is HUGELY important.

They'd first need to fix how they use ability scores before we could go with negatives.