Don’t like the idea of doing away with racial stat bonuses. Didn’t use the options out of Tasha and wont use them if its added to this new addition. As for background I would see them having more to do with skill bonuses and Tool Proficiencies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Frank 😜
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
I understand WHY they are changing them - you don't see high elven clerics very much, for example. I think this is a case where D&D could take a note from Pathfinder, and for each race mandate one of the stat boosts be placed in one of the two scores that had been associated with the race previously, and one free floating. So in the case of that high elf cleric, the player could put a +2 into wisdom but would have to put the +1 into either dexterity or intelligence.
And please have a racial feat for Ardlings that allows real, actual flight at higher levels - if you have to end the turn on the ground or you fall, even if you have rounds of flight left, IT ISN'T FLIGHT AND SHOULD NOT BE CALLED THAT, because it's merely enhanced jumping. Flight is sustained.
Don’t like the idea of doing away with racial stat bonuses. Didn’t use the options out of Tasha and wont use them if its added to this new addition. As for background I would see them having more to do with skill bonuses and Tool Proficiencies.
There should be racial stat bonuses, but they should just be the +1 bonus, and only apply to Str, Dex or Con. Makes no sense for a race (species) to be inherently more intelligent, or charismatic, or wise.
The background stat bonuses make sense, as this would be stuff people have trained for, their entire lives, up to the point we meet them in the story. Sure, skills and tools come into it also, but someone with say, a Farmer background, it would make more sense for them to have more Strength than someone with a Researcher background, and the Researcher might have more Intelligence than the Farmer. Or someone with a Healer background would likely have more Wisdom than an Entertainer, but that Entertainer might be more Dexterous and/or Charismatic than the Healer.
The way the stat bonuses would make the most sense (at least in my humble opinion) would be as follows:
+1 to Strength, Dexterity or Constitution based on race (species). This can either be "this is your stat when you choose this race, you cannot change this stat" or "choose one of these two stats when you choose this race" - and have the choices be between Strength or Constitution (for something like a Dwarf), Dexterity or Constitution (for something like a Halfling), or, Strength or Dexterity (for something like an Elf).
+1 to any two abilities based on background. These increases can be allocated to the same ability as the racial boost. These represent the years of training you've put into your background, honing your skills, improving your strengths, or maybe eliminating any weaknesses.
This would allow a player to choose something like a Goliath Gladiator and put their ASIs all into Strength, while also allowing another player to play the a Goliath Gladiator, but this player put their first and second +1's into Constitution, their third +1 into Dexterity, and then a third Goliath, this time as a Scholar, could have chosen +1 Constitution and +2 Intelligence.
Some ASIs should be tied to the inherent build of the species, but others should be all about what the character had done with their life, how they had trained and improved themself. At least, that's how I see it.
I understand WHY they are changing them - you don't see high elven clerics very much, for example.
And Why is that? Is it because people don't want optimized character builds? Or is it maybe because people don't want to Roleplay? I've seen High Elf Clerics, and they play fine but they just aren't "optimal".
Don’t like the idea of doing away with racial stat bonuses. Didn’t use the options out of Tasha and wont use them if its added to this new addition. As for background I would see them having more to do with skill bonuses and Tool Proficiencies.
There should be racial stat bonuses, but they should just be the +1 bonus, and only apply to Str, Dex or Con. Makes no sense for a race (species) to be inherently more intelligent, or charismatic, or wise.
The background stat bonuses make sense, as this would be stuff people have trained for, their entire lives, up to the point we meet them in the story. Sure, skills and tools come into it also, but someone with say, a Farmer background, it would make more sense for them to have more Strength than someone with a Researcher background, and the Researcher might have more Intelligence than the Farmer. Or someone with a Healer background would likely have more Wisdom than an Entertainer, but that Entertainer might be more Dexterous and/or Charismatic than the Healer.
The way the stat bonuses would make the most sense (at least in my humble opinion) would be as follows:
+1 to Strength, Dexterity or Constitution based on race (species). This can either be "this is your stat when you choose this race, you cannot change this stat" or "choose one of these two stats when you choose this race" - and have the choices be between Strength or Constitution (for something like a Dwarf), Dexterity or Constitution (for something like a Halfling), or, Strength or Dexterity (for something like an Elf).
+1 to any two abilities based on background. These increases can be allocated to the same ability as the racial boost. These represent the years of training you've put into your background, honing your skills, improving your strengths, or maybe eliminating any weaknesses.
This would allow a player to choose something like a Goliath Gladiator and put their ASIs all into Strength, while also allowing another player to play the a Goliath Gladiator, but this player put their first and second +1's into Constitution, their third +1 into Dexterity, and then a third Goliath, this time as a Scholar, could have chosen +1 Constitution and +2 Intelligence.
Some ASIs should be tied to the inherent build of the species, but others should be all about what the character had done with their life, how they had trained and improved themself. At least, that's how I see it.
Actually, a race being longer lived and having an older age of adulthood basically indicates they will start out with more life experience and in that regard "Wisdom". Also, some races and species are just inherently smarter. It's not racist, it's literally just fact. If you don't believe me, tell me which animal will solve a puzzle faster between a Crow and a Duck. They are both birds but Corvids are just inherently smarter by evolution. There is no way to say a fictional fantasy race couldn't work the same way. Your goliath point is a point I've also made. They are larger in size and therefore FUNCTIONALLY have to be stronger by comparison than humans.
I agree that some ASI should be attributed to a race, and some maybe attributed to a background, that make sense.
I argue that each stat is a 0-20 scale, and just because goliaths (for example) are ON AVERAGE stronger than humans, it doesn't mean that any one particular human couldn't be stronger than an average Goliath, nor does it mean that any one particular goliath could be weaker and focus more on their intelligence. Would that one still get their racial bonus, yes, but they would put it in their dump stat, which might be strength. I'd give Racial ASI a +1 to one or two stats realted to the race, and backgrounds a +1 to one or two stats related to the previous profession before taking class levels. ASSUMING a player USES backgrounds that way.
PC0X, you're saying nothing that hasn't been said dozens, hundreds, even thousands of times for the last threeish years. The arguments have been had, settled, and are no longer helpful. Look up any of the dozens of thirty-plus page threads in GD arguing fiercely about this whole thing for more detail.
If people want to complain about taking away racial ASI's please do so in another thread so this one doesn't turn into a dumpster fire and get locked like the previous threads that had that discussion over the past couple years.
Don’t like the idea of doing away with racial stat bonuses. Didn’t use the options out of Tasha and wont use them if its added to this new addition. As for background I would see them having more to do with skill bonuses and Tool Proficiencies.
There should be racial stat bonuses, but they should just be the +1 bonus, and only apply to Str, Dex or Con. Makes no sense for a race (species) to be inherently more intelligent, or charismatic, or wise.
The background stat bonuses make sense, as this would be stuff people have trained for, their entire lives, up to the point we meet them in the story. Sure, skills and tools come into it also, but someone with say, a Farmer background, it would make more sense for them to have more Strength than someone with a Researcher background, and the Researcher might have more Intelligence than the Farmer. Or someone with a Healer background would likely have more Wisdom than an Entertainer, but that Entertainer might be more Dexterous and/or Charismatic than the Healer.
The way the stat bonuses would make the most sense (at least in my humble opinion) would be as follows:
+1 to Strength, Dexterity or Constitution based on race (species). This can either be "this is your stat when you choose this race, you cannot change this stat" or "choose one of these two stats when you choose this race" - and have the choices be between Strength or Constitution (for something like a Dwarf), Dexterity or Constitution (for something like a Halfling), or, Strength or Dexterity (for something like an Elf).
+1 to any two abilities based on background. These increases can be allocated to the same ability as the racial boost. These represent the years of training you've put into your background, honing your skills, improving your strengths, or maybe eliminating any weaknesses.
This would allow a player to choose something like a Goliath Gladiator and put their ASIs all into Strength, while also allowing another player to play the a Goliath Gladiator, but this player put their first and second +1's into Constitution, their third +1 into Dexterity, and then a third Goliath, this time as a Scholar, could have chosen +1 Constitution and +2 Intelligence.
Some ASIs should be tied to the inherent build of the species, but others should be all about what the character had done with their life, how they had trained and improved themself. At least, that's how I see it.
Actually, a race being longer lived and having an older age of adulthood basically indicates they will start out with more life experience and in that regard "Wisdom". Also, some races and species are just inherently smarter. It's not racist, it's literally just fact. If you don't believe me, tell me which animal will solve a puzzle faster between a Crow and a Duck. They are both birds but Corvids are just inherently smarter by evolution. There is no way to say a fictional fantasy race couldn't work the same way. Your goliath point is a point I've also made. They are larger in size and therefore FUNCTIONALLY have to be stronger by comparison than humans.
Fair point - I don't necessarily agree that we need to apply the same logic to fictional races just because some real-world animals are smarter than others... These fictional playable races are all evolved enough and intelligent enough to build cities, share common languages, develop new technology, create works of art, etc... They're more analogous of real world humans (as a whole), much more so than real world animals... There's no reason for a Gnome to be naturally more intelligent than a Dragonborn, or a Tiefling to be naturally more charismatic than an Orc, or a Firbolg to be naturally more wise than a Tabaxi - but originally, these were all the case, and it made no sense then, and it would make no sense now... However, it does make sense for a Gnome to potentially naturally be more Dexterous than a Dragonborn (who, in turn, would potentially naturally be stronger), a Tiefling to potentially be more Dexterous than an Orc (who, in turn, would potentially naturally be stronger), and a Firbolg to potentially be stronger than a Tabaxi (who, in turn, would potentially naturally be more dexterous)... Dragonborn can be as intelligent as Gnomes, Orcs as charismatic as Tieflings, and Tabaxi as wise as Firbolg, and that's how it should be, and that's why I think it makes sense to decouple mental stats from racial ASIs (but still possibly keep a +1 racial ASI for physical attributes)...
All that said, I forgot to mention it in the last comment - I'm perfectly happy with no racial ASIs at all, put all the starting ASIs into Backgrounds....
If people want to complain about taking away racial ASI's please do so in another thread so this one doesn't turn into a dumpster fire and get locked like the previous threads that had that discussion over the past couple years.
Yes. This. If you have strong feelings, put it in the survey, where the people who actually make decisions will see it. Not page 9 of message board thread.
Pretty much this. I prefer a middle ground, personally. But, having played in games where someone is much less optimized than the rest of the group more has, in my experience, resulted in the player of the underpowered character not having fun as they realize the only thing they do better than any other party member is fall to zero HP. I've been there myself, and seen other people in the same position enough to see the results.
Don’t like the idea of doing away with racial stat bonuses. Didn’t use the options out of Tasha and wont use them if its added to this new addition. As for background I would see them having more to do with skill bonuses and Tool Proficiencies.
There should be racial stat bonuses, but they should just be the +1 bonus, and only apply to Str, Dex or Con. Makes no sense for a race (species) to be inherently more intelligent, or charismatic, or wise.
The background stat bonuses make sense, as this would be stuff people have trained for, their entire lives, up to the point we meet them in the story. Sure, skills and tools come into it also, but someone with say, a Farmer background, it would make more sense for them to have more Strength than someone with a Researcher background, and the Researcher might have more Intelligence than the Farmer. Or someone with a Healer background would likely have more Wisdom than an Entertainer, but that Entertainer might be more Dexterous and/or Charismatic than the Healer.
The way the stat bonuses would make the most sense (at least in my humble opinion) would be as follows:
+1 to Strength, Dexterity or Constitution based on race (species). This can either be "this is your stat when you choose this race, you cannot change this stat" or "choose one of these two stats when you choose this race" - and have the choices be between Strength or Constitution (for something like a Dwarf), Dexterity or Constitution (for something like a Halfling), or, Strength or Dexterity (for something like an Elf).
+1 to any two abilities based on background. These increases can be allocated to the same ability as the racial boost. These represent the years of training you've put into your background, honing your skills, improving your strengths, or maybe eliminating any weaknesses.
This would allow a player to choose something like a Goliath Gladiator and put their ASIs all into Strength, while also allowing another player to play the a Goliath Gladiator, but this player put their first and second +1's into Constitution, their third +1 into Dexterity, and then a third Goliath, this time as a Scholar, could have chosen +1 Constitution and +2 Intelligence.
Some ASIs should be tied to the inherent build of the species, but others should be all about what the character had done with their life, how they had trained and improved themself. At least, that's how I see it.
Actually, a race being longer lived and having an older age of adulthood basically indicates they will start out with more life experience and in that regard "Wisdom". Also, some races and species are just inherently smarter. It's not racist, it's literally just fact. If you don't believe me, tell me which animal will solve a puzzle faster between a Crow and a Duck. They are both birds but Corvids are just inherently smarter by evolution. There is no way to say a fictional fantasy race couldn't work the same way. Your goliath point is a point I've also made. They are larger in size and therefore FUNCTIONALLY have to be stronger by comparison than humans.
Fair point - I don't necessarily agree that we need to apply the same logic to fictional races just because some real-world animals are smarter than others... These fictional playable races are all evolved enough and intelligent enough to build cities, share common languages, develop new technology, create works of art, etc... They're more analogous of real world humans (as a whole), much more so than real world animals... There's no reason for a Gnome to be naturally more intelligent than a Dragonborn, or a Tiefling to be naturally more charismatic than an Orc, or a Firbolg to be naturally more wise than a Tabaxi - but originally, these were all the case, and it made no sense then, and it would make no sense now... However, it does make sense for a Gnome to potentially naturally be more Dexterous than a Dragonborn (who, in turn, would potentially naturally be stronger), a Tiefling to potentially be more Dexterous than an Orc (who, in turn, would potentially naturally be stronger), and a Firbolg to potentially be stronger than a Tabaxi (who, in turn, would potentially naturally be more dexterous)... Dragonborn can be as intelligent as Gnomes, Orcs as charismatic as Tieflings, and Tabaxi as wise as Firbolg, and that's how it should be, and that's why I think it makes sense to decouple mental stats from racial ASIs (but still possibly keep a +1 racial ASI for physical attributes)...
All that said, I forgot to mention it in the last comment - I'm perfectly happy with no racial ASIs at all, put all the starting ASIs into Backgrounds....
Seeing as wisdom is acquired through age, it doesn't makes sense to decouple wisdom from ANY race with an extended life span, like Elves, and Dwarves, as they would inherently be wiser merely for having lived to adulthood. I won't decouple ability scores from races at all, because it takes away from them something that made them unique.
PC0X, you're saying nothing that hasn't been said dozens, hundreds, even thousands of times for the last threeish years. The arguments have been had, settled, and are no longer helpful. Look up any of the dozens of thirty-plus page threads in GD arguing fiercely about this whole thing for more detail.
Don’t like the idea of doing away with racial stat bonuses. Didn’t use the options out of Tasha and wont use them if its added to this new addition. As for background I would see them having more to do with skill bonuses and Tool Proficiencies.
There should be racial stat bonuses, but they should just be the +1 bonus, and only apply to Str, Dex or Con. Makes no sense for a race (species) to be inherently more intelligent, or charismatic, or wise.
The background stat bonuses make sense, as this would be stuff people have trained for, their entire lives, up to the point we meet them in the story. Sure, skills and tools come into it also, but someone with say, a Farmer background, it would make more sense for them to have more Strength than someone with a Researcher background, and the Researcher might have more Intelligence than the Farmer. Or someone with a Healer background would likely have more Wisdom than an Entertainer, but that Entertainer might be more Dexterous and/or Charismatic than the Healer.
The way the stat bonuses would make the most sense (at least in my humble opinion) would be as follows:
+1 to Strength, Dexterity or Constitution based on race (species). This can either be "this is your stat when you choose this race, you cannot change this stat" or "choose one of these two stats when you choose this race" - and have the choices be between Strength or Constitution (for something like a Dwarf), Dexterity or Constitution (for something like a Halfling), or, Strength or Dexterity (for something like an Elf).
+1 to any two abilities based on background. These increases can be allocated to the same ability as the racial boost. These represent the years of training you've put into your background, honing your skills, improving your strengths, or maybe eliminating any weaknesses.
This would allow a player to choose something like a Goliath Gladiator and put their ASIs all into Strength, while also allowing another player to play the a Goliath Gladiator, but this player put their first and second +1's into Constitution, their third +1 into Dexterity, and then a third Goliath, this time as a Scholar, could have chosen +1 Constitution and +2 Intelligence.
Some ASIs should be tied to the inherent build of the species, but others should be all about what the character had done with their life, how they had trained and improved themself. At least, that's how I see it.
Actually, a race being longer lived and having an older age of adulthood basically indicates they will start out with more life experience and in that regard "Wisdom". Also, some races and species are just inherently smarter. It's not racist, it's literally just fact. If you don't believe me, tell me which animal will solve a puzzle faster between a Crow and a Duck. They are both birds but Corvids are just inherently smarter by evolution. There is no way to say a fictional fantasy race couldn't work the same way. Your goliath point is a point I've also made. They are larger in size and therefore FUNCTIONALLY have to be stronger by comparison than humans.
Fair point - I don't necessarily agree that we need to apply the same logic to fictional races just because some real-world animals are smarter than others... These fictional playable races are all evolved enough and intelligent enough to build cities, share common languages, develop new technology, create works of art, etc... They're more analogous of real world humans (as a whole), much more so than real world animals... There's no reason for a Gnome to be naturally more intelligent than a Dragonborn, or a Tiefling to be naturally more charismatic than an Orc, or a Firbolg to be naturally more wise than a Tabaxi - but originally, these were all the case, and it made no sense then, and it would make no sense now... However, it does make sense for a Gnome to potentially naturally be more Dexterous than a Dragonborn (who, in turn, would potentially naturally be stronger), a Tiefling to potentially be more Dexterous than an Orc (who, in turn, would potentially naturally be stronger), and a Firbolg to potentially be stronger than a Tabaxi (who, in turn, would potentially naturally be more dexterous)... Dragonborn can be as intelligent as Gnomes, Orcs as charismatic as Tieflings, and Tabaxi as wise as Firbolg, and that's how it should be, and that's why I think it makes sense to decouple mental stats from racial ASIs (but still possibly keep a +1 racial ASI for physical attributes)...
All that said, I forgot to mention it in the last comment - I'm perfectly happy with no racial ASIs at all, put all the starting ASIs into Backgrounds....
Seeing as wisdom is acquired through age, it doesn't makes sense to decouple wisdom from ANY race with an extended life span, like Elves, and Dwarves, as they would inherently be wiser merely for having lived to adulthood. I won't decouple ability scores from races at all, because it takes away from them something that made them unique.
They say that wisdom is acquired through age in our real world, but that's not necessarily true (it's more so acquired through experience, and just because someone is old doesn't mean they gained a lot of experience. Sure, it helps, but it's not always the case) - being older doesn't automatically make you wise! Being young doesn't mean you're lacking wisdom either. Also, even if old dwarves and old elves were wiser, on average, than say humans or lizardfolk, doesn't mean that young dwarves and young elves are automatically wiser - again, it's more about experience than age, and some young elves and some young dwarves could easily have lived a sheltered life - think of these sheltered youths as the equivalent of trust-fund babies in real life - would you say a trust-fund baby is more wise than someone who has had to struggle every day to survive?
Speaking of the struggle, brings me to the next point of why wisdom shouldn't be linked to race - you use Dwarves and Elves as examples for "inherently wise" races (even though, in the 5e PHB, Dwarves get a CON Boost and Elves get a DEX Boost - neither get a WIS Boost (outside of some specific subraces, like Hill Dwarf with a +1 - but that proves it's more about environment, not age or inherent ability)). But Wisdom, in a D&D sense, is about Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception and Survival. Should Elves and Dwarves be inherently better at Animal Handling than a Firbolg, Halfling or Goliath? Should they be more Insightful than an Owlin, Aasimar or Tortle? Should they have better affinity for Medicine than a Gnome, Human or Genasi? Should they have greater Perception than a Dragonborn, Leonin or Aarakocra? Or be better at Survival than an Orc, Bugbear or Githyanki?
Would an older Elf, who has lived their entire life within the walls of their city, knowing only books (studies) and bows (physical training), interacting with no one other than their fellow Elves, knowing nothing but Elven customs and duties, be inherently more wise than a young Lizardfolk, who has spent their days out in the wild, learning to track and hunt, and avoid hazards, surviving all manner of stormy nights and blistering days (Survival), learning to sense motives in their prey, or predators (Insight), stalk them from afar, hone their sight, hearing and smell to sense danger all around them (Perception), tend to their own wounds, and the wounds of others (Medicine), and even possibly learn to work with animals for mutual gain, perhaps gaining the trust of a beast that they were then able to tame and use as a mount (Animal Handling). But, the Elf lives longer, so they're inherently wiser? I'm not buying that, wisdom has nothing to do with race (or even necessarily with age). The Elf may be inherently more Dexterous than a Lizardfolk, but they're not inherently more wise, more intelligent, or more charismatic.
I do not mind Stat bonus being removed from race but how about just adding the +1/+1/+1 or +1/+2 to the Stat Generation section. IE. Determine stats then add the +1/+1/+1 or +1/+2.
Dragonborn were notoriously weak in the PHB. Everyone appeared to be happy with the Fitzban changes. Why did they nerf it again?
Aasimar are the celestial counterparts to the abyssal Tieflings. The flavor is good and well balanced. Don't muddy it with Ardlings. Ardlings would fit better with a primal (drawing their connection from nature) or arcane background. With an arcane or primal background their animal characteristics could evolve in similar fashion to draconic sorcerers for those wanting full flight for example. That could become OP if not done carefully though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Don’t like the idea of doing away with racial stat bonuses. Didn’t use the options out of Tasha and wont use them if its added to this new addition. As for background I would see them having more to do with skill bonuses and Tool Proficiencies.
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
I wholeheartedly agree, but it appears we are in the minority.
No survey yet?
I understand WHY they are changing them - you don't see high elven clerics very much, for example. I think this is a case where D&D could take a note from Pathfinder, and for each race mandate one of the stat boosts be placed in one of the two scores that had been associated with the race previously, and one free floating. So in the case of that high elf cleric, the player could put a +2 into wisdom but would have to put the +1 into either dexterity or intelligence.
And please have a racial feat for Ardlings that allows real, actual flight at higher levels - if you have to end the turn on the ground or you fall, even if you have rounds of flight left, IT ISN'T FLIGHT AND SHOULD NOT BE CALLED THAT, because it's merely enhanced jumping. Flight is sustained.
There should be racial stat bonuses, but they should just be the +1 bonus, and only apply to Str, Dex or Con. Makes no sense for a race (species) to be inherently more intelligent, or charismatic, or wise.
The background stat bonuses make sense, as this would be stuff people have trained for, their entire lives, up to the point we meet them in the story. Sure, skills and tools come into it also, but someone with say, a Farmer background, it would make more sense for them to have more Strength than someone with a Researcher background, and the Researcher might have more Intelligence than the Farmer. Or someone with a Healer background would likely have more Wisdom than an Entertainer, but that Entertainer might be more Dexterous and/or Charismatic than the Healer.
The way the stat bonuses would make the most sense (at least in my humble opinion) would be as follows:
This would allow a player to choose something like a Goliath Gladiator and put their ASIs all into Strength, while also allowing another player to play the a Goliath Gladiator, but this player put their first and second +1's into Constitution, their third +1 into Dexterity, and then a third Goliath, this time as a Scholar, could have chosen +1 Constitution and +2 Intelligence.
Some ASIs should be tied to the inherent build of the species, but others should be all about what the character had done with their life, how they had trained and improved themself. At least, that's how I see it.
Racial stat bonuses should be gone for good, and I like it that way.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
And Why is that? Is it because people don't want optimized character builds? Or is it maybe because people don't want to Roleplay? I've seen High Elf Clerics, and they play fine but they just aren't "optimal".
The reason for removing ASIs from race is to make race a roleplaying decision instead of a CharOp decision.
Actually, a race being longer lived and having an older age of adulthood basically indicates they will start out with more life experience and in that regard "Wisdom". Also, some races and species are just inherently smarter. It's not racist, it's literally just fact. If you don't believe me, tell me which animal will solve a puzzle faster between a Crow and a Duck. They are both birds but Corvids are just inherently smarter by evolution. There is no way to say a fictional fantasy race couldn't work the same way. Your goliath point is a point I've also made. They are larger in size and therefore FUNCTIONALLY have to be stronger by comparison than humans.
I agree that some ASI should be attributed to a race, and some maybe attributed to a background, that make sense.
I argue that each stat is a 0-20 scale, and just because goliaths (for example) are ON AVERAGE stronger than humans, it doesn't mean that any one particular human couldn't be stronger than an average Goliath, nor does it mean that any one particular goliath could be weaker and focus more on their intelligence. Would that one still get their racial bonus, yes, but they would put it in their dump stat, which might be strength. I'd give Racial ASI a +1 to one or two stats realted to the race, and backgrounds a +1 to one or two stats related to the previous profession before taking class levels. ASSUMING a player USES backgrounds that way.
PC0X, you're saying nothing that hasn't been said dozens, hundreds, even thousands of times for the last threeish years. The arguments have been had, settled, and are no longer helpful. Look up any of the dozens of thirty-plus page threads in GD arguing fiercely about this whole thing for more detail.
Please do not contact or message me.
Survey is Here
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
If people want to complain about taking away racial ASI's please do so in another thread so this one doesn't turn into a dumpster fire and get locked like the previous threads that had that discussion over the past couple years.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Fair point - I don't necessarily agree that we need to apply the same logic to fictional races just because some real-world animals are smarter than others... These fictional playable races are all evolved enough and intelligent enough to build cities, share common languages, develop new technology, create works of art, etc... They're more analogous of real world humans (as a whole), much more so than real world animals... There's no reason for a Gnome to be naturally more intelligent than a Dragonborn, or a Tiefling to be naturally more charismatic than an Orc, or a Firbolg to be naturally more wise than a Tabaxi - but originally, these were all the case, and it made no sense then, and it would make no sense now... However, it does make sense for a Gnome to potentially naturally be more Dexterous than a Dragonborn (who, in turn, would potentially naturally be stronger), a Tiefling to potentially be more Dexterous than an Orc (who, in turn, would potentially naturally be stronger), and a Firbolg to potentially be stronger than a Tabaxi (who, in turn, would potentially naturally be more dexterous)... Dragonborn can be as intelligent as Gnomes, Orcs as charismatic as Tieflings, and Tabaxi as wise as Firbolg, and that's how it should be, and that's why I think it makes sense to decouple mental stats from racial ASIs (but still possibly keep a +1 racial ASI for physical attributes)...
All that said, I forgot to mention it in the last comment - I'm perfectly happy with no racial ASIs at all, put all the starting ASIs into Backgrounds....
Yes. This.
If you have strong feelings, put it in the survey, where the people who actually make decisions will see it. Not page 9 of message board thread.
Pretty much this. I prefer a middle ground, personally. But, having played in games where someone is much less optimized than the rest of the group more has, in my experience, resulted in the player of the underpowered character not having fun as they realize the only thing they do better than any other party member is fall to zero HP. I've been there myself, and seen other people in the same position enough to see the results.
Seeing as wisdom is acquired through age, it doesn't makes sense to decouple wisdom from ANY race with an extended life span, like Elves, and Dwarves, as they would inherently be wiser merely for having lived to adulthood. I won't decouple ability scores from races at all, because it takes away from them something that made them unique.
Fair enough, I'll take my leave then.
They say that wisdom is acquired through age in our real world, but that's not necessarily true (it's more so acquired through experience, and just because someone is old doesn't mean they gained a lot of experience. Sure, it helps, but it's not always the case) - being older doesn't automatically make you wise! Being young doesn't mean you're lacking wisdom either. Also, even if old dwarves and old elves were wiser, on average, than say humans or lizardfolk, doesn't mean that young dwarves and young elves are automatically wiser - again, it's more about experience than age, and some young elves and some young dwarves could easily have lived a sheltered life - think of these sheltered youths as the equivalent of trust-fund babies in real life - would you say a trust-fund baby is more wise than someone who has had to struggle every day to survive?
Speaking of the struggle, brings me to the next point of why wisdom shouldn't be linked to race - you use Dwarves and Elves as examples for "inherently wise" races (even though, in the 5e PHB, Dwarves get a CON Boost and Elves get a DEX Boost - neither get a WIS Boost (outside of some specific subraces, like Hill Dwarf with a +1 - but that proves it's more about environment, not age or inherent ability)). But Wisdom, in a D&D sense, is about Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception and Survival. Should Elves and Dwarves be inherently better at Animal Handling than a Firbolg, Halfling or Goliath? Should they be more Insightful than an Owlin, Aasimar or Tortle? Should they have better affinity for Medicine than a Gnome, Human or Genasi? Should they have greater Perception than a Dragonborn, Leonin or Aarakocra? Or be better at Survival than an Orc, Bugbear or Githyanki?
Would an older Elf, who has lived their entire life within the walls of their city, knowing only books (studies) and bows (physical training), interacting with no one other than their fellow Elves, knowing nothing but Elven customs and duties, be inherently more wise than a young Lizardfolk, who has spent their days out in the wild, learning to track and hunt, and avoid hazards, surviving all manner of stormy nights and blistering days (Survival), learning to sense motives in their prey, or predators (Insight), stalk them from afar, hone their sight, hearing and smell to sense danger all around them (Perception), tend to their own wounds, and the wounds of others (Medicine), and even possibly learn to work with animals for mutual gain, perhaps gaining the trust of a beast that they were then able to tame and use as a mount (Animal Handling). But, the Elf lives longer, so they're inherently wiser? I'm not buying that, wisdom has nothing to do with race (or even necessarily with age). The Elf may be inherently more Dexterous than a Lizardfolk, but they're not inherently more wise, more intelligent, or more charismatic.
I do not mind Stat bonus being removed from race but how about just adding the +1/+1/+1 or +1/+2 to the Stat Generation section. IE. Determine stats then add the +1/+1/+1 or +1/+2.
Dragonborn were notoriously weak in the PHB. Everyone appeared to be happy with the Fitzban changes. Why did they nerf it again?
Aasimar are the celestial counterparts to the abyssal Tieflings. The flavor is good and well balanced. Don't muddy it with Ardlings. Ardlings would fit better with a primal (drawing their connection from nature) or arcane background. With an arcane or primal background their animal characteristics could evolve in similar fashion to draconic sorcerers for those wanting full flight for example. That could become OP if not done carefully though.