Last month, I made a Twitter thread about racial ability score bonuses. I don’t like the way that races in D&D get numerical bonuses to their ability scores. I think it’s unnecessarily limiting. There are over 1,000 unique race/class combinations in fifth edition D&D, but only a small handful of them are worth playing from a character optimization standpoint. Not everyone feels the need to play optimal characters, and would instead rather play characters for their roleplay potential than their mechanical viability, but I don’t see why we can’t have both.
Halfling rogues are a classic class combination, for example, because they’re an optimal combo for all three pillars of D&D. Ever since The Hobbit, the idea of halflings being small and sneaky has been a staple of fantasy, giving us prime examples of how one might explore, fight, or interact with people as a halfling rogue. And D&D lets you do all that because of supremely synergistic racial ability score increases, racial traits, and the somewhat more ephemeral idea of being fun to roleplay. On the other hand, class combinations like a half-orc wizard have always been a harder sell. In previous additions, a half-orc’s penalty to Intelligence made being a wizard incredibly hard—and even in fifth edition D&D, the fact that the half-orc race doesn’t get a bonus to Intelligence makes it hard to excel as a wizard because you’ll always have a subpar spell attack bonus and saving throw DC.
This is to say nothing of the fact that linking ability score penalties (which are thankfully absent from the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, at least) to your choice of race has distasteful similarities to real-life racist ideology.
But the thing is, it doesn’t have to be this way. Ability score increases don’t have to be tied to which race you chose. They could be tied directly to your class, or more indirectly to your background, to some combination of the two options. Let’s take a look at some character creation house rules that you can use to decouple ability scores from race.
Step One: Remove Racial Ability Score Increases
The first step of this house rule is tremendously easy. Simply remove the Ability Score Increase trait from your character’s race and subrace, if applicable. In the case of the so-called “monstrous races” of orcs and kobolds from Volo’s Guide to Monsters, this removes their ability score reductions, as well.
If you’re worried about this making your character’s race irrelevant, or making the various fantasy races of D&D too homogeneous, don’t worry. Each race still has plenty of traits that help make them unique. For example, tieflings still have the Darkvision, Hellish Resistance, and Infernal Legacy traits, all of which make them unique and fantastical—and more importantly, these traits are interesting in a way that numerical stat bonuses just aren’t. Even without racial ability score increases, half-orcs are still strong and tough by virtue of their Relentless Endurance and Savage Attacks traits, and dwarves are still sturdy and martially adept, thanks to their Dwarven Resilience and Dwarven Combat Training traits.
There are few exceptions to this houserule for races and subraces that are highly impacted by their ability score increases. These are:
Human. The variant human presented in the Player’s Handbook is the default example of the human race while using this house rule.
Mountain Dwarf. Since the mountain dwarf subrace gains a +2 bonus to Strength in place of another trait, they gain a new trait in its place: Martial Aptitude. When you hit with a martial melee weapon, you roll an additional 1d4 and add it to the damage.
This trait originally appeared in a different form, which many commenters rightfully pointed out was much stronger than a +2 bonus to Strength. The older version is presented here for consistency.
Martial Aptitude. When using a martial weapon, you roll one additional damage die. For instance, when you hit with a greatsword, you roll 3d6 to determine the attack’s damage, instead of 2d6.
Half Elf. Since half elves gain more ability score increases than most other races, they gain a new trait in its place: Knowledge of the Elves. You possess one of the following traits: Cantrip (as the high elf trait), Elf Weapon Training (as the high elf or wood elf trait), Mask of the Wild (as the wood elf trait), Superior Darkvision (as the drow trait), or Drow Weapon Training (as the drow trait). Other traits, such as those from elves not in the Player's Handbook, can be used at the DM's discretion.
Half-elves originally had a different trait in an earlier version of this article, which several commenters pointed out had unpleasant social implications. The older version is presented here for consistency. Supernatural Charm. You know the friends cantrip. Starting at 3rd level, you can cast charm person once with this trait and regain the ability to do so when you finish a long rest. Charisma is your spellcasting ability for these spells.
Step Two: Reassign Ability Score Increases
Now that you’ve severed ability score increases from races, it’s time to relink them somewhere else in the system. Since almost every race in D&D gains a +2 bonus to one ability score and a +1 bonus to another, a total bonus of +3 should be assigned to all characters. My preferred option is for characters to gain access to improving their ability scores based on the training they undergo to become a member of a certain class. However, while discussing this option with other D&D fans, I found a not-insignificant number of people who felt that this would make all characters of a certain class feel too homogenous, regardless of racial traits.
While I disagree with this take, I’ve nevertheless presented three different ways to reassign ability score increases. Take your pick!
Option One: Class
You gain the Ability Score Increase feature when you choose your class at 1st level. If you gain levels in another class using the optional Multiclassing rules, you don’t gain this feature again.
Ability Score Increase (Barbarian). You can increase one of your ability scores by 2 and another ability score by 1. Alternatively, you can increase three of your ability scores by 1. The ability scores you can increase using this feature are Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution.
Ability Score Increase (Bard). You can increase one of your ability scores by 2 and another ability score by 1. Alternatively, you can increase three of your ability scores by 1. You can increase any ability score using this feature.
Ability Score Increase (Cleric). You can increase one of your ability scores by 2 and another ability score by 1. Alternatively, you can increase three of your ability scores by 1. The ability scores you can increase using this feature are Strength, Dexterity, or Wisdom.
Ability Score Increase (Druid). You can increase one of your ability scores by 2 and another ability score by 1. Alternatively, you can increase three of your ability scores by 1. The ability scores you can increase using this feature are Strength, Wisdom, or Charisma.
Ability Score Increase (Fighter). You can increase one of your ability scores by 2 and another ability score by 1. Alternatively, you can increase three of your ability scores by 1. The ability scores you can increase using this feature are Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, or Intelligence.
Ability Score Increase (Monk). You can increase one of your ability scores by 2 and another ability score by 1. Alternatively, you can increase three of your ability scores by 1. The ability scores you can increase using this feature are Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, or Wisdom.
Ability Score Increase (Paladin). You can increase one of your ability scores by 2 and another ability score by 1. Alternatively, you can increase three of your ability scores by 1. The ability scores you can increase using this feature are Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, or Charisma.
Ability Score Increase (Ranger). You can increase one of your ability scores by 2 and another ability score by 1. Alternatively, you can increase three of your ability scores by 1. The ability scores you can increase using this feature are Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, or Wisdom.
Ability Score Increase (Rogue). You can increase one of your ability scores by 2 and another ability score by 1. Alternatively, you can increase three of your ability scores by 1. You can increase any ability score using this feature.
Ability Score Increase (Sorcerer). You can increase one of your ability scores by 2 and another ability score by 1. Alternatively, you can increase three of your ability scores by 1. The ability scores you can increase using this feature are Dexterity, Constitution, or Charisma.
Ability Score Increase (Warlock). You can increase one of your ability scores by 2 and another ability score by 1. Alternatively, you can increase three of your ability scores by 1. The ability scores you can increase using this feature are Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, or Charisma.
Ability Score Increase (Wizard). You can increase one of your ability scores by 2 and another ability score by 1. Alternatively, you can increase three of your ability scores by 1. The ability scores you can increase using this feature are Dexterity, Constitution, or Intelligence.
Option Two: Background
You gain the Ability Score Increase feature based on your background. This list includes the backgrounds from the Player’s Handbook. If you choose a background from a different book, consult with your Dungeon Master to determine one ability score to gain a +2 bonus in, and another ability score to gain a +1 bonus in.
Ability Score Increase (Acolyte). Your Wisdom score increases by 2, and one other ability score of your choice increases by 1.
Ability Score Increase (Charlatan). Your Charisma score increases by 2, and one other ability score of your choice increases by 1.
Ability Score Increase (Criminal). Your Constitution score increases by 2, and one other ability score of your choice increases by 1.
Ability Score Increase (Entertainer). Your Charisma score increases by 2, and one other ability score of your choice increases by 1.
Ability Score Increase (Folk Hero). Your Strength or Dexterity score increases by 2, and one other ability score of your choice increases by 1.
Ability Score Increase (Guild Artisan). Your Intelligence score increases by 2, and one other ability score of your choice increases by 1.
Ability Score Increase (Hermit). Your Wisdom score increases by 2, and one other ability score of your choice increases by 1.
Ability Score Increase (Noble). Your Intelligence or Charisma score increases by 2, and one other ability score of your choice increases by 1.
Ability Score Increase (Outlander). Your Dexterity score increases by 2, and one other ability score of your choice increases by 1.
Ability Score Increase (Sage). Your Intelligence score increases by 2, and one other ability score of your choice increases by 1.
Ability Score Increase (Sailor). Your Strength or Dexterity score increases by 2, and one other ability score of your choice increases by 1.
Ability Score Increase (Soldier). Your Constitution score increases by 2, and one other ability score of your choice increases by 1.
Ability Score Increase (Urchin). Your Dexterity or Constitution score increases by 2, and one other ability score of your choice increases by 1.
Option Three: Class and Background
The third and final option is a combination of the two above. When you choose your class, assign a +2 to one ability score available to your class in Option One (or two +1s to two ability scores available to your class). Then when you choose your background, assign a +1 to the ability score specified by your background in Option Two. Since some backgrounds in Option Two let you choose between two ability scores to increase, you can choose either of them.
Would you use this house rule in your home D&D game? Which option is your favorite, or do you have a fourth option that you would use instead?
James Haeck is the lead writer for D&D Beyond, the co-author of Waterdeep: Dragon Heist and the Critical Role Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting, a member of the Guild Adepts, and a freelance writer for Wizards of the Coast, the D&D Adventurers League, and other RPG companies. He lives in Seattle, Washington with his partner Hannah and their animal companions Mei and Marzipan. You can find him wasting time on Twitter at @jamesjhaeck.
Horrible idea. I hope that you just move on and let this one go
I think the Criminal background should give different ability score increases depending on what version of the Criminal background you get. A Fence should get extra CHA, and a Pickpocket should get extra DEX.
Another idea, keeping in line with the original ASI Mountain Dwarves had could be: Brute Strength - flavor it how you want, but the gist is Mountain Dwarves get a +1 to hit and damage rolls when using strength based weapons. You can also add another feature, something like Load Bearer - your carrying capacity is increases by 15 pounds.
They'd get the normal combat and carrying benefit associated with a +2 Str ASI, but not get the associated skill and save increase, which is balanced out by them potentially taking another ability score at character creation instead of STR.
I happen to like your idea, but since so many people are saying it is terrible, I would like to offer an alternative. Why not just take away racial ability score increases altogether, and instead offer a 30 point, point-buy system? Giving you three extra points than you currently get, and you could put them wherever you wanted them to be.
For example: If you wanted to play a strong Orc, you could put those points into strength, for a starting strength score of 18. You could then give them an average intelligence of eight and a constitution of 16.
The example above is in line with a typical Orcish warrior, but it doesn't have to be that way. If you wanted to play a clever Orc, who used his smarts to solve problems, you could put your three points into his intelligence. Giving him an 18 in his intelligence score, and a minimum strength of eight, allowing you to increase his wisdom to 16.
The rest of the points would be used to balance out the character in either case, but you have now created two entirely different Orcs by choosing which abilities you want as his primary abilities and assigning your points accordingly.
Of course, you don't have to put all three points into one ability score. As this system is basically a variant point-buy system, you can split them up as needed, or assign them all to a single score, as I did in my examples.
Also, such a system removes those additional points from being related to any race, class or background, as they are just incorporated into point-buy, meaning you can use them to create the character you want rather than being constrained to specific races, classes or backgrounds.
Just my thoughts that I would like you to hear your opinions on. Specifically those of the op, but everyone is welcome to chime in of course.
I actually agree when it comes to physical stuff, but the issue here is more with mental bonuses, (and more so, penalties). The idea of orcs being inherently less intelligent, savage, yet physically imposing and likely to mistreat women is a direct holdover from stereotypes of "savage" races, particularly regarding African-Americans in recent history. That's pretty damn awful if you're aware of it, though obviously no-one is suggesting that 5e is continuing that intentionally (I hope). Equally, we're not complaining about (most of) the racial abilities, just the scores. Personally, I don't hugely object to physical scores relating to race (I am a student of biology and neuroscience) but there's nothing to suggest any sophisticated large-brained species would be any more or less intelligent than other similar species. As far as we're aware, there isn't a huge gradient from "animalistic" to "human"; there's a gradiant with animals, the "intelligent" ones developing toddler-like abilities like basic tool use and learning, but then there's a HUGE leap and all adult humans have basically the same potential, mentally speaking and assuming similar conditions of upbringing (which is why I think mental ability scores could be based on Background instead). It's one of those points in evolutionary history where we just go "yeah, we got lucky with this one brain mutation" and part of why we think intelligent alien life is way rarer than regular ol' alien life, if it exists. Plus, the only way that anything remotely human-niche is ever going to survive the evolution process is by being as smart as us, no matter how brawny they are.
This is a tangent, but... Most of our societal ideas of "stupid" and "intelligent" have turned out to be issues with the way we educate, not the way we inherently are, and there remains to this day no way of accurately determining, quantifying or even defining "intelligence". Almost everyone can learn almost anything, so the idea of "mental ability scores" differing between (sentient) races has absolutely no basis in real-life science. Even the Neanderthals who were (in theory) likely to be "smarter" than us didn't have our sophisticated grasp of mechanics when it came to throwing, though that's possibly because they were strong enough to go into melee (which is part of why they pretty much died out, along with less social grouping). Even then, that increased "smartness" is based on brain size, and as far as we're aware brain size has very little impact on human intelligence (though differing proportions might). Intelligence (and, in game terms, Charisma and Wisdom are too) is a property of brain complexity, composition and neuroplasticity more than it is of brain size (even ratio isn't a hard-and-fast indicator). There's nothing to suggest that orc brains are less complex than human brains; if they were, they'd be basically incapable of having an intelligence score above four. That obviously doesn't super apply to a fictional game, but you did bring up biology and I'll take any excuse to ramble haha.
Race was always an easy throwback to Middle Earth, wherein Tolkein quite literally intended the different people to be actually races in the modern sense, which is part of why all of this is so iffy. Elves being physical perfection was a reflection of the (very very common) idea of the racial ideal of the day (it wasn't just you-know-who that was perpetuating the ideal in those days). Pathfinder has its own issues, but at least they're all supposed to be different semi-alien species and and are as different from "slightly altered human stereotype" as possible. And have dropped the word itself in PF2.
Using ability scores alongside the same "races" when it comes to groups that are somehow still obvious Tolkein-clones is problematic and it doesn't take an "SJW" or scholar to see it. I'm a huge fan of D&D, but it's sort of just lazy at this point? Like, there are ways to expand on these ideas without having them be Legolas the deft and Gimli the stout. (See: Golarion)
Also, if you don't like it, that's okay! Just please don't expect other people to ignore the breathtakingly obvious racial analogues. Plus, it's not like people don't tailor the races to their personal flavour anyway; it really won't make much difference which way you do it, mechanically speaking. I'm not convinced by James' methods of fixing the system, but at least he's acknowledging the issue (even though, again, the more physiology-justified stuff is pretty okay by me).
No-one's calling you racist, but there are the inevitable remnants of old-school racist ideas in the system. That's just something we have to work with and improve, not a judgement on Wizards. (How I like to judge them is by making fun of their childlike attitude to copyright law, but options are available.)
I personally like this idea, though you'd have to deal with Half-Elves, Humans and Dwarves somehow. I never did like the 15-cap at character creation; sometimes I like playing a character with a significant difference between flaw and focus.
I really like the class and background based option because you can get those weirder/less generic combos like you mentioned and it makes your personal backstory matter more. I may pass this idea to one of my DM's
Something that i dont think anyone has touched on yet, is that since this is a fantasy world we are talking about, is the fact that many of the PC races were handcrafted by a creator God of some sort. You could make the argument that racial modifiers are a byproduct of their patron's guiding hand. For better or worse. Maybe the high elves were gifted with superior intelligence from the divine. Maybe the ogres were cursed with lower intelligence for some past transgression. As DMs we dont have to get into an argument about genetics vs culture or the like, we have lore or worldbuilding in our toolbox.
Optimization builds will not change as a result of DMs using Haeck's optional build rules. Players who want to be OP will still try to be OP. That isn't going to change.
Actually encouraging more players to Not go the optimization route is inherently difficult when the game's mechanics focus primarily on combat and most players go in knowing that if they die, it will be in combat and not for failing multiple Persuasion checks or whatever. So ultimately, these rules, while well-intentioned, won't change much while adding another layer of complication to character creation.
Agreed!
I understand the base of the article and the uproar behind it. Give ideas to anyone struggling to play an out of the ordinary race/class combo character. I always felt like the backgrounds were lacking in purpose aside from giving people a base idea of who the character is in order to help role play better. I have to disagree with one big point of the article though.
I feel like all of these ‘limitations’ were put in place to create balance. I have a halfling fighter/battle master and I love him. I got a lucky roll and landed an 18 and put that into Dex. So yeah, level 1 I took dueling as my fighting style and I was a beast. So I balanced that out by giving him the lowest number (8) I rolled for INT and taking as many reasonable lower numbers I could. I ended up with a balanced and fun character to play. I negotiated with my DM and sacrificed my +1 CON modifier and the lucky trait to gain a feat.
Any DM worth their salt will always work with a player to create a fun character to play that is balanced in the game world.
Well I understand your point about cultural monoliths. Certain stats like INT, CHA and WIS for the most part seem more cultural/background oriented (unless there is very good reason for it like its a race of psionics, or magically enhanced such as in the case of a succubus). But certain things I still think are physical traits of the race. An orc's strength for instance. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of a rework where you have certain ability stats be racially oriented while others are background oriented. The problem is Background is VERY subjective. Basically the sky is the limit because it's all up to your imagination. The best a rule set could do would be to give sample backgrounds as they do now as templates which you can customize and expand upon.
But I think taking away all of the unique racial ability stats entirely would be a mistake that would upset a lot of people. Offering an OPTIONAL alternative system as well as a system that simply augments the current rules would be the way to go. The reason being is that a lot of people really like and are perfectly fine with the current system. Some of like the current system with the ability to adjust and augment it slightly based on character background and then for the rest you can have and optional homebrew alternative.
That'a a very good point. Ultimate equality is not achievable. People will just keep going more granular and finding something new to find unequal or unfair. People need to relish and enjoy the inequality because that's what makes the game (and life for that matter) interesting. With out struggle and without something to fight or strive for life would be pointless and boring.
That just sounds overly complicated and like you said opens things up to min/maxers.
I say use the base system and adjust with the background story trait. You want an Orc wizard. Say he grew up in the city under the tutelage of a great mage. lower his strength bonus to +1 and add it to INT. OR say he's a biological experiment subject of some alchemist/mage who exprimented on you to find a way to make orcs a more intelligent race and increasing your brain size. boom there's your justification for +2 INT. With Imagination the sky is the limit. You just need to be able to have your DM approve it.
If I could give you 10 thumbs up I would. This elaborates on my points and fears as well. I too lived through the "if you play DnD you worship satan" phase and this racism bit smacks of that quite a bit. It has no place in a fantasy role playing GAME.
I can understand people wanting to mix things up to break up meta class combinations but that's easily solved with a little imagination and a creative backstory that a DM approves. It's only + 1 or +2 stat points here and there and we get 4 opportunitys to increast them by 2 points as we level so to it seems like a whole lot of disruption and controversy over something so small and only important to min/maxer style players who are used to playing video games rather than table top RPGs.
Please re-read the article, and in particular the second article that was linked to. The comments "obsessed with racism" didn't come about for no reason; Haeck is entirely responsible for injecting the topic into the conversation, and in an fairly explosive way at that.
(Yes, explosive; casually raising implications that racism is present in everything you touch, including your hobby of choice, just shows poor discernment and a lack of critical thinking. It's not as if the ideas of all the various social "sciences" are universally-accepted moral truths that one should reasonably expect an entire audience to agree with unconditionally.)
Honestly the big problem here that is detracting from what would otherwise have been a constructive conversation on how to breakup optimization meta is this comment Haeck made early in his article:
"This is to say nothing of the fact that linking ability score penalties (which are thankfully absent from the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, at least) to your choice of race has distasteful similarities to real-life racist ideology."
If you click on that link it leads you to a very cringey article where some guy compares real world racism with Orcs in Tolken's lord of the rings... Basically saying we're being racist towards a fantasy novel's fictional bad guys. If James had simply not put that 1 line in his article this conversation would be much more constructive and productive but instead it's making this about social justice agendas and how they are encroaching on fictional games, stories and fantasy media.
Please never use hashtags again.. also idt you read most of the comments, because most of them may conceide the "idea" is alright. Most posts, and yes i read most all of them up to yours also state that this is overall a strawman argument, and its application doesnt actually fit with the design, logic, lore, or balance of the game. Many like myself stressed that the denial and dismissal of racial attributes is perhaps in itself somewhat racist, expecting thay all bipedals are infact equals, and therefore if your character is not optimised then it is inherently less viable, fun to play or a failure, as you now have no reason to not be the absolute best as we're all starting on the EXACT same footing. Complexity, diversity, physicality, and mental prowess are all qualities that can vary greatly between races, and even if not quite as much within the race, to view certain races as subpar for certain professions is literally racist when applied across all humanoids.
You are right. Black is black, white is white, brown is brown and any combination or colour that any person has (which can be a huge palette in d&d) is just what it is - that colour.
Likewise, any traits assigned to particular races (especially in d&d) are largely moot.
To pick on the increasingly hypothetical Orc, for the umpteenth time - Orcish society tends to be very tribal and warlike and practices that don't directly benefit the tribes, or their war efforts and generally not encouraged.
So Orcs have a lower intelligence - and in earlier editions an actual disadvantage, but that doesn't really mean anything. Let's consider what INT actually is in d&d
From the SRD
"Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons."
We can also consider it to be "how much knowledge you have" - hence knowledge checks tend to be INT based.
So in Orcish society, Orcs are not really taught a lot of stuff beyond war studies and interactions with tribal members and so on. You aren't going to find an Orc school teaching little Orcs about ancient history for example, and so it makes sense for Orcs to have a lower intelligence, or even a disadvantage to intelligence.
Does that mean that no Orcs ever, had a decent intelligence - no it doesn't! Every once in a while, you'll get an Orc genius, who has a naturally high intelligence (despite any disadvantages they have die to race).
Are such Orcs outliers? Sure! In fact they often become player characters and thus adventurers and heroes, but that doesn't mean you can't have a Orcish chief who is a Genius - perhaps his intelligence is what makes him such a good chief.
There are a number of ways to justify why our Orc (or any character) might have low or high INT. Ways that include background, backstory and class and yes, race as well.
I think that this is what James was trying to say, but then again, why does it really matter in a world where we are only limited by the power of our imagination.
Thing is Orcs aren't just Tusks and a different skin color. They're quite a bit larger and taller than humans and hence have more muscle mass, and because of that different muscle and bone densities. It's like trying to compare human muscles to chimp muscles. Large chimps are so strong they can rip your arms off even though they are relatively similar size to humans. So it's a lot more than just social or cultural. That's the point we're trying to make.
Certain statistics like intelligence. Those I can see being much more affected by social/cultural background. But even then certain monster type races might not be evolved enough to have the same level brain function as humans. But again with a little imagination and DM approval just about anything is possible using the backstory method as a means of adjustment/augmentation.
Firstly, I LOVE this. It would definitely encourage my optimising players to try out new class combinations for sure. If I used this homebrew in my campaign, I would choose option 1. However, when my players choose a class, I would give them the choice of which abilities they want to increase, rather than limiting it to specific options for each class. Makes things much simpler. Unless I am missing something critical, I feel that would not be detrimental to do?