title

Overall, I prefer the new direction. D&D has become less of a game, and more of a shared experience. With flexibility, it becomes possible to tell more nuanced stories without being compromised by arbitrary mechanics.

That said, I like games just fine. However, the board game universe has also taken massive strides since the inception of D&D, so it is easy to satisfy those more structured cravings in other arenas.

It's been argued in a lot of different threads.  

I don't think there is a wrong answer so much as there are table dependant answers.  I love changes that give players more options specifically when it comes to not feeling pidgeonholed on having to choose certain races when it comes to getting the most of their mechanics.  This isn't even directed toward those who min max, but just people who don't want to feel lesser to someone who chose a race that gave their cleric a +2 to Wis.

I do think its a pretty big diversion from standard fantasy tropes because we've been conditioned to look at certain races and go "Dwarves are hearty and Elves are agile", but at the same time this really does start to change with what SHOULD be changing as a perception.  I think where we get into the sticks a lot is similar to the argument of race in sports as it relates to predisposition to ability, either mental or physical.  I absolutely think that some people are predisposed with better gifts on the physical or mental front, but this isn't reality we're talking about.  It's a fantasy game.

My personal opinion on that though, is that it's ******* fantasy.  It's whatever we say it is, and thankfully we can say that it's the most inclusive thing possible to as many groups as possible without calling to racial tropes/stereotypes in a negative fashion.  The reality is when it comes to our player characters, is that these representations of what we want aren't the normal.  They are the exceptional.  They are what we want them to be and don't typically fall into the norm, and this has been the case from the very first editions.  A grand percentage of the most famous characters have been human, which are the most bland race there is even though hobbits/halfings/gnomes(depending on edition) have had predispositions to sneaky stuff per our fantasy source material.

In the end, there is no wrong answer.  Run your tables how you want, as long as you aren't offending those at your table. 

I’m ok with it. It’s convenient but I never felt hindered by the fixed racial ASIs when making my characters before so either way it alright.

I'm ok with it as it brings more flexibility even though i'm used to have fixed racial bonus, which tended to favor certain class for each race.  Also, undefined bonus were a nice feature unique to human and half-elf that when applied to every races kind of reduce the uniqueness they had in this regards.

Did anything happen recently that's pertinent to these changes or are we talking about what's essentially started with Tasha's and was made the standard with Van Richten's eight months ago?

Its becoming the standard in Monsters of the Multiverse, all the re worked races in there have it.

Here's an interview article on this subject that Jeremy Crawford recently did with GIZMODO https://gizmodo.com/dungeons-and-dragons-player-race-changes-monsters-of-mu-1848373576?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=_facebook&fbclid=IwAR0k23bgEPsa6mYeGdCvVkuBKW-xwUAJZZ8bZku_Kx-ifvjwM2LiGI8sdHY

Some highlight about it i think is very pertinent;

“For quite some time, we have not liked how the choice of race in the game had often too much weight on the player’s choice of class,” Crawford admitted. “Fans often talk about this—that connection between race and class is not something we as designers actually desire. We want players to pick those two critical components of their character and choose the two that really sing to them so they don’t feel like they’re pigeonholed. [In Monsters of the Multiverse] people will get the floating bonuses we introduced in Tasha’s Cauldron. If somebody is making a character, and wants to recreate the bonuses that existed previously, the advantage of the floating bonus system is they can do exactly that.”

That, as with the previous changes Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything introduced, was an important point Crawford wanted to stress: the system presented in Monsters of the Multiverse is an accompaniment to the one in Fifth Edition’s Player’s Handbook, an option rather than a replacement. “We have not taken anything away here. What we’ve done is give flexibility for people to create the character they want without us putting our hand on the scale of ‘this is the class you should choose if you play this race,’” Crawford clarified.

I mean before all this there were very clear negatives for picking races that fit your story idea but that didn’t give you boosts in the right places and that sucked. 

I think having races all give options as to where the points go, that’s fine and works. It lets you play the fantasy tropes if you like, but also explore the stories of those who differ without feeling weaker. The brawny and clumsy elf, the lithe but frail dwarf. Why not? 

and if you want to play suboptimally, then you have the option too. I know I have chosen races I didn’t want to make my character feel relevant with the fixed scores and this change excites me.

don’t get me wrong I am fine with races having different ability score points to place. I am fine with the human +1 to everything. I am fine with races having +1 to 3 skills. I am also fine with some races having less ability score increases if the race has a fun ability they can use. hypothetically if a race had pack tactics but had 1 less point to use that works for me. 

I Love it!

Less worry about making my character mechanics wise the best it can be from the start and create whatever you want!

And i know i could make a half orc sorcerer with a lower charisma from the go… but i also like to be able to do something good/better with my spells and not feel behind.

and with this i can!

Poor Mountain Dwarf is getting a nerf.

Quote from Mistborn20 >>

I mean before all this there were very clear negatives for picking races that fit your story idea but that didn’t give you boosts in the right places and that sucked. 

I think having races all give options as to where the points go, that’s fine and works. It lets you play the fantasy tropes if you like, but also explore the stories of those who differ without feeling weaker. The brawny and clumsy elf, the lithe but frail dwarf. Why not? 

and if you want to play suboptimally, then you have the option too. I know I have chosen races I didn’t want to make my character feel relevant with the fixed scores and this change excites me.

don’t get me wrong I am fine with races having different ability score points to place. I am fine with the human +1 to everything. I am fine with races having +1 to 3 skills. I am also fine with some races having less ability score increases if the race has a fun ability they can use. hypothetically if a race had pack tactics but had 1 less point to use that works for me. 

 We solved this via role play. And depending on your creation method for ability scores created quite a range. 
From 3e forward class restrictions were removed. The favored class showed what the cultural norm was but didn’t stop you from other things. 
Ability Score Adjustments should reflect differences in Races in my opinion, some settings even overwrote those to be different because their world was different than normal. 
there is a reason it held throughout the editions even into 5E. 
i think ASIs should be an option open for DMs to have in their game but the base should be a standard. Dwarf = Strong and Hearty (Str & Con). 

The adjustable ASI just leads to more power creep. Many are just going to look at what are the best secondary abilities of a race are and never play anything else. 

Quote from GodwinXZ >>

Poor Mountain Dwarf is getting a nerf.

Something I never see mentioned about this, which I think should be considered:

Because fixed racial ASIs don't alter the cap on the associated ability score, they don't achieve what they were claimed to.

Take two races, one gets a +2 to Strength, the other a +2 to Dexterity; with just the aspects of their races, neither can go above 20 in Strength or Dexterity. Which means that fundamentally, neither is stronger or more dexterous, they just get a possible leg up on reaching the cap.

In order for fixed racial ASIs to match the common perception, they would have to come with a raised cap on the associated score, to illustrate that the race in question is more capable of being better, all things equal.

All that said, I welcome floating ASIs, with using racial traits to differentiate.

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

Here's an interview article on this subject that Jeremy Crawford recently did with GIZMODO https://gizmodo.com/dungeons-and-dragons-player-race-changes-monsters-of-mu-1848373576?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=_facebook&fbclid=IwAR0k23bgEPsa6mYeGdCvVkuBKW-xwUAJZZ8bZku_Kx-ifvjwM2LiGI8sdHY

Some highlight about it i think is very pertinent;

“For quite some time, we have not liked how the choice of race in the game had often too much weight on the player’s choice of class,” Crawford admitted. “Fans often talk about this—that connection between race and class is not something we as designers actually desire. We want players to pick those two critical components of their character and choose the two that really sing to them so they don’t feel like they’re pigeonholed. [In Monsters of the Multiverse] people will get the floating bonuses we introduced in Tasha’s Cauldron. If somebody is making a character, and wants to recreate the bonuses that existed previously, the advantage of the floating bonus system is they can do exactly that.”

That, as with the previous changes Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything introduced, was an important point Crawford wanted to stress: the system presented in Monsters of the Multiverse is an accompaniment to the one in Fifth Edition’s Player’s Handbook, an option rather than a replacement. “We have not taken anything away here. What we’ve done is give flexibility for people to create the character they want without us putting our hand on the scale of ‘this is the class you should choose if you play this race,’” Crawford clarified.

I like the "hand on the scale" comparison. It's not that fixed ASI's literally forced one to pick certain classes, but it certainly weighted things in certain directions and now they won't. Simple. More flexibility for PC's, which is a good thing.

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

Some highlight about it i think is very pertinent;

“For quite some time, we have not liked how the choice of race in the game had often too much weight on the player’s choice of class,” Crawford admitted. “Fans often talk about this—that connection between race and class is not something we as designers actually desire. We want players to pick those two critical components of their character and choose the two that really sing to them so they don’t feel like they’re pigeonholed. [In Monsters of the Multiverse] people will get the floating bonuses we introduced in Tasha’s Cauldron. If somebody is making a character, and wants to recreate the bonuses that existed previously, the advantage of the floating bonus system is they can do exactly that.”

That, as with the previous changes Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything introduced, was an important point Crawford wanted to stress: the system presented in Monsters of the Multiverse is an accompaniment to the one in Fifth Edition’s Player’s Handbook, an option rather than a replacement. “We have not taken anything away here. What we’ve done is give flexibility for people to create the character they want without us putting our hand on the scale of ‘this is the class you should choose if you play this race,’” Crawford clarified.

I like the "hand on the scale" comparison. It's not that fixed ASI's literally forced one to pick certain classes, but it certainly weighted things in certain directions and now they won't. Simple. More flexibility for PC's, which is a good thing.

It's also quite nice to see a professional designer acknowledge that issue and express it clearly.

For me it kinda comes down to this

Before, choosing a race usually came down "which racial options will give me at least one of the ASI bonuses I want for my primary stat? I should probably pick one of those" 

Now, with the change, I feel choosing a race can become more of "which racial options will make for an interesting backstory OR offer interesting features that compliment the class I am playing?"

I was already homebrewing this rule before Tasha's was released. It just made sense to me that characters aren't always typical of their race. 🤷‍♂️

Quote from TheYeti1775 >>

Quote from Mistborn20 >>

I mean before all this there were very clear negatives for picking races that fit your story idea but that didn’t give you boosts in the right places and that sucked. 

I think having races all give options as to where the points go, that’s fine and works. It lets you play the fantasy tropes if you like, but also explore the stories of those who differ without feeling weaker. The brawny and clumsy elf, the lithe but frail dwarf. Why not? 

and if you want to play suboptimally, then you have the option too. I know I have chosen races I didn’t want to make my character feel relevant with the fixed scores and this change excites me.

don’t get me wrong I am fine with races having different ability score points to place. I am fine with the human +1 to everything. I am fine with races having +1 to 3 skills. I am also fine with some races having less ability score increases if the race has a fun ability they can use. hypothetically if a race had pack tactics but had 1 less point to use that works for me. 

 We solved this via role play. And depending on your creation method for ability scores created quite a range. 
From 3e forward class restrictions were removed. The favored class showed what the cultural norm was but didn’t stop you from other things. 
Ability Score Adjustments should reflect differences in Races in my opinion, some settings even overwrote those to be different because their world was different than normal. 
there is a reason it held throughout the editions even into 5E. 
i think ASIs should be an option open for DMs to have in their game but the base should be a standard. Dwarf = Strong and Hearty (Str & Con). 

The adjustable ASI just leads to more power creep. Many are just going to look at what are the best secondary abilities of a race are and never play anything else. 

 How does roleplay solve anything to do with you picking a race that just gives you less stats you want for the sake of story? I want to tell a good story for my characters but I also don’t want to have zero fun with bad stats. 

the way things are now, you can play the strong hearty dwarf. But you could also play the intelligent dwarf. The roguish dwarf. And do all that with stats that support THAT story. This way gives the flexibility to follow the cliches and to break them. 

I think more threads should have polls.  It really cuts a lot of the arguments about "silent majorities" and "vocal minorities" and lets people get a real sense of where the player base falls on these kinds of things, on this site at least. 

I am a fan of Floating ASI's and hope that we will see more emphasis on interesting racial traits in the future.