Like changing the +2 cha of an Aasimar to +2 dex.

Do you maybe let to change just the +1 modifier and the main +2 is the same?

Note: I am not talking about the custom lineage? I am talking about the full race with asi swap.

Even before Tasha's made this mainstream, I was perfectly fine with players moving their ASI around.  I personally think it makes the most sense--I want people to play characters they want to play, and that means choosing both the race and the class they want.  Forcing players into suboptimal class/race combinations because you are mired in the silliness of the fixed ASI system is being a bit of a jerk--you are basically saying "you cannot truly excel in the character you want because I, the DM, am enforcing a completely arbitrary decision Wizards made."

This may be a more concise thread if you offered a poll for yes/no responses.  Otherwise this is inviting a rehash of the same thread that got shut down in the past couple of days.

To the question, do I allow the "customize origin" to allow floating ability score modifiers in character generation as introduced in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.  Yes.  With new players I let them know that the game traditionally has these default fixed modifiers which they're free to use differently if they want.

At no point in any game I've run where this option was used did a player ever say "You know, I just don't feel like I"m playing an elf (or Dwarf or whatever) with the mods applied this way."

To answer the thread question and not get into the endless debates?  Yeah, I let my players do it.  From a game balance standpoint, there isn't anything that really changes from letting the Elf have +2 Int + 1 STR or whatever it is they want.  Shit, in games where someone wanted to be a mountain dwarf?  I just give everyone +2, +2.

Sure, I let them swap. If it helps the player come up with an idea they think will be fun to play then why not. The existing initial ASIs are just to favor stereotypes for that species. However, lots of the newer or monstrous races don't really have much of a fictional stereotype (e.g. aarakokra, aasimar, yuan-ti, goblin, kobold,  and so on)  and for the other fantasy tropes - it is pretty easy to imagine dextrous dwarves, strong elves or studious and smart halflings among other things.

It also doesn't break anything in terms of balance in my opinion.

I've got PCs in my party now that have used the custom origin as described in Tasha's. I've seen no breaking the game over it. The static ASIs only hold true to those that want to play an archetypal character that is predisposed to those traits. If the player wants to create a character that doesn't follow the archetype, or isn't predisposed to any one thing, fine. I won't stomp my feet and yell at the internet about this not being the way it's supposed to be.

Will reafirm, been doing this for 8 years, long before Tasha's made the rule optional. From the looks of things in MMM it will become standard anyway. It doesn't impact the game and at no point has my High Dex dwarf player started becoming "elf like" 

I'd probably include cultural consequences for stats in the game depending on player choice.  Ex: A goliath with 8 strength would probably face ridicule in a society of half-giants for being weaker than an average human.  A gnome with 8 intelligence would probably be treated like a child by a gnomish society that highly values intelligence.  Likewise, having an extremely high stat in an ability score that's typically weaker within a culture could result in high prestige, or at least a begrudged respect for the ability.  If the player goes against type, that's opportunity for roleplay, giving the character chances for personal growth.

Also, the new book, Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse completely disconnects ability score improvements.  They all get either a +2 & a +1, or they get three +1s.  It only seems fair to allow the same for the others (like the ones in the Player's Handbook, which won't get their update for a couple more years, because wotc is waiting for a big anniversary year to do so).

I haven't previously, but I will. The more choice players have in customising their character, the better, excluding utter silliness.

I would like to change the Proficiencies of some classes, because I don't see the use of Light crossbows with that class, unless you are focused in Multiclassing it. It should be allowed the proficiency on Arcane tools or at least some instruments ( like the Planar magnifier, or the googles ). The other class I see is rarely unbalanced is the Artificer, Can anyone explain me why ( by default ) an artificier gets proficiency in Thieves' tool ???

Does it means all the Artificers must steal anything to get the required metals or items to craft anything ?????  I see it like a nonsense rule... what da. This class should get ( by default ) proficiency in Forgery tools or in Pottery tools.

Quote from FayetteGamer >>

I'd probably include cultural consequences for stats in the game depending on player choice.  Ex: A goliath with 8 strength would probably face ridicule in a society of half-giants for being weaker than an average human.  A gnome with 8 intelligence would probably be treated like a child by a gnomish society that highly values intelligence.  Likewise, having an extremely high stat in an ability score that's typically weaker within a culture could result in high prestige, or at least a begrudged respect for the ability.  If the player goes against type, that's opportunity for roleplay, giving the character chances for personal growth.

Also, the new book, Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse completely disconnects ability score improvements.  They all get either a +2 & a +1, or they get three +1s.  It only seems fair to allow the same for the others (like the ones in the Player's Handbook, which won't get their update for a couple more years, because wotc is waiting for a big anniversary year to do so).

I had a half orc player who was a wizard, he swapped his +2 in strength to Int and his backstory was he had been bullied in his tribe for being weaker. His high intelligence was not seen by them as a strength, his motivation as a character was to return one day and show what he had become. 

Quote from Scarloc_Stormcall >>

Quote from FayetteGamer >>

I'd probably include cultural consequences for stats in the game depending on player choice.  Ex: A goliath with 8 strength would probably face ridicule in a society of half-giants for being weaker than an average human.  A gnome with 8 intelligence would probably be treated like a child by a gnomish society that highly values intelligence.  Likewise, having an extremely high stat in an ability score that's typically weaker within a culture could result in high prestige, or at least a begrudged respect for the ability.  If the player goes against type, that's opportunity for roleplay, giving the character chances for personal growth.

Also, the new book, Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse completely disconnects ability score improvements.  They all get either a +2 & a +1, or they get three +1s.  It only seems fair to allow the same for the others (like the ones in the Player's Handbook, which won't get their update for a couple more years, because wotc is waiting for a big anniversary year to do so).

I had a half orc player who was a wizard, he swapped his +2 in strength to Int and his backstory was he had been bullied in his tribe for being weaker. His high intelligence was not seen by them as a strength, his motivation as a character was to return one day and show what he had become. 

 That's what I'm talking about. The cultural expectations influenced his self-chosen course in which he ultimately proved his worth to those who had looked down upon him.

Quote from Scarloc_Stormcall >>

Quote from FayetteGamer >>

I'd probably include cultural consequences for stats in the game depending on player choice.  Ex: A goliath with 8 strength would probably face ridicule in a society of half-giants for being weaker than an average human.  A gnome with 8 intelligence would probably be treated like a child by a gnomish society that highly values intelligence.  Likewise, having an extremely high stat in an ability score that's typically weaker within a culture could result in high prestige, or at least a begrudged respect for the ability.  If the player goes against type, that's opportunity for roleplay, giving the character chances for personal growth.

Also, the new book, Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse completely disconnects ability score improvements.  They all get either a +2 & a +1, or they get three +1s.  It only seems fair to allow the same for the others (like the ones in the Player's Handbook, which won't get their update for a couple more years, because wotc is waiting for a big anniversary year to do so).

I had a half orc player who was a wizard, he swapped his +2 in strength to Int and his backstory was he had been bullied in his tribe for being weaker. His high intelligence was not seen by them as a strength, his motivation as a character was to return one day and show what he had become. 

 I had a player who did something similar with a Bugbear who wanted to be an Artificer.   

My group has always been fine with it but I'd say we only actually use it... 30% of the time? Maybe less.

And like the examples above, when someone plays something noticeably atypical it naturally plays into their backstory. It's fun to play against type and it's nice to be able to do so without being a burden on the rest of the party.