I wasn't sure if I should put this thread in this subforum. If it doesn't go here, I'd appreciate someone in authority moving it.
In any case, the title of my "proposal" I think is quite self explanatory. I don't think I'm the first one who has thought of this solution, but it seems to me that it's the ideal one to "deracialize" the game.
The context of this proposal is in view of the variable ASIS that seems to be going to become the standard in the game. That is to say, that all the races will be able to choose a +2/+1 or three +1. Not that I find this solution terrible, but I do find it a bit lazy, and frankly I don't like the design. That will make, in my opinion, that the races that give you good "perks" are several steps above the others (races that grant flight, good racial spells, or great abilities like the fey step of the eldarin). And it also makes designing your build much more trivial and bland.
However, I also don't like the fixed ASIS that was up until Tasha's. So I propose the following solution: - Races no longer offer ASIS. Neither fixed nor variable. - The ASIS are linked to the background, which actually symbolizes all your previous baggage. So, for example, the Soldier background might offer +1 CON and +2 STR or DEX. Sage could offer +1 to WIS and +2 to INT. Entertainer could offer +1 DEX and +2 CHA. Etc...
The idea is simple, and I doubt I'll be the first to think of it. What do you think of this solution? And, if you don't like it, what is the reason? What problem do you see?
I still see the problem of races with good "perks" vs. races with bad "perks", but I see much more difficulty in solving that. Maybe by removing Perks and giving Tasha's the option to give Dark vision or proficiency, but I don't really like that solution either. Perhaps by removing Perks, and giving a feat, but there are many characteristic Perks that cannot be replaced with feats. I don't know, I don't see a good solution to that.
I'm sure that you're not the first to mention their dislike for the new way of doing this particular thing, nor the last.
I do agree with your sentiment of character design becoming trivial and bland, but from my understanding that's not a flaw, but the point. In an attempt to prevent one race from being mechanically better than another, there is now a path for all races to be equal. And that swings both ways on the the spectrum of good/bad. The overall outcome has the perception of being bland and flavorless. And, I might add, the racial ASIs are currently an optional rule brought out in Tasha's. Yes, the intent might be to make them permanent, but for now the DM has to make an allowance for them to be used. The cannonical rules all reside in the PHB, MM and DMG. Everything else is expansion and option.
I find that your solution, while plausible, lends to the illusion of choice. If races have no mechanical benefit, how is that any different than the selection that is available now? Currently everyone can get the same selection with the only difference being what name they put in the race block of the PC sheet. Mechanically they are the same. Pushing more of the mechanical choices into backgrouds works to consolidate the mechanical benefits during character generation. Eventually, after enough selections have been made, we will discern which background is the mechanically superior for the build that we are going to be making and "off to the cookie facotory we go". I'm of the opinion that people will not choose to make a sub-optimal choice just for flavor. (We might actually be at this point now.)
While you see the solution as lazy, a more vigorus approach will likely provide the same result. Lazy people are prized for their ability to make the process they perform more efficient.
I will conceede that this is strictly my opinion, and subject to my own bias. YMMV
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Yes it's correct. Choosing a +1/+2 or three +1s is the same as choosing a background that has those modifiers. However, I think the background makes more sense. I could understand the initial ASIS when it was fixed in a race. I don't like it, but I get it. They wanted to reflect racial differences. Now, being variables, I no longer know what they want to reflect. And, in fact, ultimately, they are not tied to race anymore. It's just one more number to be stronger, more dexterous, etc... Why just choose those modifiers? It looks like a simple patch. With the background, on the other hand, the essence that motivated that design in the beginning is maintained. Only that typical advantage of a specific group is transferred, from the race to the character's own history (the background). That's less confrontational than tying it to race, but it maintains a narrative sense to the choice (even greater sense, since we're defined by our history and background, rather than by our birth).
Or... We could... I dunno... Maybe... Tie the "Fixed ASIs" to the classes instead? Since that is going to be the end result of these "Floating ASIs" anyway.
That will make, in my opinion, that the races that give you good "perks" are several steps above the others (races that grant flight, good racial spells, or great abilities like the fey step of the eldarin).
Has this not always been the case to a degree? People with this mindset would just pick the strongest race and then pick the class that the race benefits the most. Ideally the races are somewhat balanced even when you take the stats away - and I think that's pretty true in most cases. Adjustments in MoM are likely to further even out the stragglers like genasi.
I mean I'm not against the idea. I kind of like the idea of getting +2 from your race and +1 from your background, or vice-versa. But if your goal is to prevent min-maxing, I think a much better solution is to just stop worrying so much about min-maxing. There will always be people who want to be good at what they set out to do. Instead of trying to subvert human nature, we should put our energy in finding ways to challenge the characters and encourage the development of the person behind the statblock.
Right now we have 3 columns to choose from: Race (Left) Class (Center) Background (Right). Moving the ASIs from one column to the next doesn't increase the amount of choices that a person has. Hence the illusion of choice, and the point of view that doing something doesnt mean you accomplish something. Shifting the ASIs to an additional column would increase those choices by adding another pool of choice.
Ever seen a 5'1" person standing next to 3 - 6'6" people, only to hear them say: "these are my brothers..."? Even inside of families, there are genetic differences that are imparted to each individual that, in a different age, are the physical attributes given to you at birth. There are beliefs that if you are born under a certain star sign or during a particular month or year that you will have a predisposition toward certiain traits. Why not encorporate that into character progression. Look into the 2e Birthright campaign setting, or even MOoT - Supernatural Gifts. Why not put a choice on the birth of a character, race agnostic. If you are born under the sign of a certain deity, you would get a +2 to your (insert ability X here). Or under a moon, or star sign, or what ever. Leave the racial traits - darkvision, advantage on saving throws vs. poison, powerful build - and the abilities provided by the lineage of your PC where they are. Class and Background can stay the same. If you feel that certain races are more predisposed to being more dexterous or naturally lucky, give the race a +1 to that ability and shorten the birth choice by the same +1.
I agree with you that we are defined by our experiences, history and background, as these things make up the personality and morality of the person. These things don't make a person naturally gifted with a particular atribute. I might suggest that their race doesn't neccessarily do that either.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I like the idea. However, as has already been said, you are not actually changing anything. You're just making the background a more weighty choice than before. Anyway, I do agree that it makes more sense for ASIS to be linked to background (or class as someone suggested), than to race. It is logical that someone who has been studying for years has more intelligence. Or that someone who has spent half his life at court has more charisma. I think that's the idea of linking skill proficiencies to background (someone who has spent half their life studying will have more intellectual skills. While someone who has spent half their life in court will have more social skills). In short, it is a change that in itself would not be bad, but I do not think it will improve what is now much. It is more cosmetic than anything else.
I wasn't sure if I should put this thread in this subforum. If it doesn't go here, I'd appreciate someone in authority moving it.
In any case, the title of my "proposal" I think is quite self explanatory. I don't think I'm the first one who has thought of this solution, but it seems to me that it's the ideal one to "deracialize" the game.
The context of this proposal is in view of the variable ASIS that seems to be going to become the standard in the game. That is to say, that all the races will be able to choose a +2/+1 or three +1. Not that I find this solution terrible, but I do find it a bit lazy, and frankly I don't like the design. That will make, in my opinion, that the races that give you good "perks" are several steps above the others (races that grant flight, good racial spells, or great abilities like the fey step of the eldarin). And it also makes designing your build much more trivial and bland.
However, I also don't like the fixed ASIS that was up until Tasha's. So I propose the following solution:
- Races no longer offer ASIS. Neither fixed nor variable.
- The ASIS are linked to the background, which actually symbolizes all your previous baggage. So, for example, the Soldier background might offer +1 CON and +2 STR or DEX. Sage could offer +1 to WIS and +2 to INT. Entertainer could offer +1 DEX and +2 CHA. Etc...
The idea is simple, and I doubt I'll be the first to think of it. What do you think of this solution? And, if you don't like it, what is the reason? What problem do you see?
I still see the problem of races with good "perks" vs. races with bad "perks", but I see much more difficulty in solving that. Maybe by removing Perks and giving Tasha's the option to give Dark vision or proficiency, but I don't really like that solution either. Perhaps by removing Perks, and giving a feat, but there are many characteristic Perks that cannot be replaced with feats. I don't know, I don't see a good solution to that.
I'm sure that you're not the first to mention their dislike for the new way of doing this particular thing, nor the last.
I do agree with your sentiment of character design becoming trivial and bland, but from my understanding that's not a flaw, but the point. In an attempt to prevent one race from being mechanically better than another, there is now a path for all races to be equal. And that swings both ways on the the spectrum of good/bad. The overall outcome has the perception of being bland and flavorless. And, I might add, the racial ASIs are currently an optional rule brought out in Tasha's. Yes, the intent might be to make them permanent, but for now the DM has to make an allowance for them to be used. The cannonical rules all reside in the PHB, MM and DMG. Everything else is expansion and option.
I find that your solution, while plausible, lends to the illusion of choice. If races have no mechanical benefit, how is that any different than the selection that is available now? Currently everyone can get the same selection with the only difference being what name they put in the race block of the PC sheet. Mechanically they are the same. Pushing more of the mechanical choices into backgrouds works to consolidate the mechanical benefits during character generation. Eventually, after enough selections have been made, we will discern which background is the mechanically superior for the build that we are going to be making and "off to the cookie facotory we go". I'm of the opinion that people will not choose to make a sub-optimal choice just for flavor. (We might actually be at this point now.)
While you see the solution as lazy, a more vigorus approach will likely provide the same result. Lazy people are prized for their ability to make the process they perform more efficient.
I will conceede that this is strictly my opinion, and subject to my own bias. YMMV
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Yes it's correct. Choosing a +1/+2 or three +1s is the same as choosing a background that has those modifiers. However, I think the background makes more sense. I could understand the initial ASIS when it was fixed in a race. I don't like it, but I get it. They wanted to reflect racial differences. Now, being variables, I no longer know what they want to reflect. And, in fact, ultimately, they are not tied to race anymore. It's just one more number to be stronger, more dexterous, etc... Why just choose those modifiers? It looks like a simple patch.
With the background, on the other hand, the essence that motivated that design in the beginning is maintained. Only that typical advantage of a specific group is transferred, from the race to the character's own history (the background). That's less confrontational than tying it to race, but it maintains a narrative sense to the choice (even greater sense, since we're defined by our history and background, rather than by our birth).
Or... We could... I dunno... Maybe... Tie the "Fixed ASIs" to the classes instead? Since that is going to be the end result of these "Floating ASIs" anyway.
Has this not always been the case to a degree? People with this mindset would just pick the strongest race and then pick the class that the race benefits the most. Ideally the races are somewhat balanced even when you take the stats away - and I think that's pretty true in most cases. Adjustments in MoM are likely to further even out the stragglers like genasi.
I mean I'm not against the idea. I kind of like the idea of getting +2 from your race and +1 from your background, or vice-versa. But if your goal is to prevent min-maxing, I think a much better solution is to just stop worrying so much about min-maxing. There will always be people who want to be good at what they set out to do. Instead of trying to subvert human nature, we should put our energy in finding ways to challenge the characters and encourage the development of the person behind the statblock.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Right now we have 3 columns to choose from: Race (Left) Class (Center) Background (Right). Moving the ASIs from one column to the next doesn't increase the amount of choices that a person has. Hence the illusion of choice, and the point of view that doing something doesnt mean you accomplish something. Shifting the ASIs to an additional column would increase those choices by adding another pool of choice.
Ever seen a 5'1" person standing next to 3 - 6'6" people, only to hear them say: "these are my brothers..."? Even inside of families, there are genetic differences that are imparted to each individual that, in a different age, are the physical attributes given to you at birth. There are beliefs that if you are born under a certain star sign or during a particular month or year that you will have a predisposition toward certiain traits. Why not encorporate that into character progression. Look into the 2e Birthright campaign setting, or even MOoT - Supernatural Gifts. Why not put a choice on the birth of a character, race agnostic. If you are born under the sign of a certain deity, you would get a +2 to your (insert ability X here). Or under a moon, or star sign, or what ever. Leave the racial traits - darkvision, advantage on saving throws vs. poison, powerful build - and the abilities provided by the lineage of your PC where they are. Class and Background can stay the same. If you feel that certain races are more predisposed to being more dexterous or naturally lucky, give the race a +1 to that ability and shorten the birth choice by the same +1.
I agree with you that we are defined by our experiences, history and background, as these things make up the personality and morality of the person. These things don't make a person naturally gifted with a particular atribute. I might suggest that their race doesn't neccessarily do that either.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I like the idea. However, as has already been said, you are not actually changing anything. You're just making the background a more weighty choice than before.
Anyway, I do agree that it makes more sense for ASIS to be linked to background (or class as someone suggested), than to race. It is logical that someone who has been studying for years has more intelligence. Or that someone who has spent half his life at court has more charisma. I think that's the idea of linking skill proficiencies to background (someone who has spent half their life studying will have more intellectual skills. While someone who has spent half their life in court will have more social skills).
In short, it is a change that in itself would not be bad, but I do not think it will improve what is now much. It is more cosmetic than anything else.