Would this upset the game balance a lot?

[Spacehamster]

If your race got +1 or +2 in a ability score he/she can raise it to a maximum of 22 instead, to better simulate that for example a sturdy dwarf STR fighter is stronger then a halfling STR fighter. :)

[JeenLeen]

If you implement it, I recommend also raising the limit for class features where a limit is explicitly raised. The only instance I can think of is how Barbarians can go above 20 (in Str & Con?). I forget the details, but it should go up so that the barbarian class feature isn't null.

Can't say for overall balance, as I haven't played a high-level game. I reckon it would not impact most characters (besides theoretical char-ops).

[JumboWheat01]

I suppose it wouldn't be too unbalanced, you still need to use your limited ASIs on improving the stat, and that would mean the loss of a feat for some. In a featless game setting, yeah, that could be potentially breaking though. Getting a +6 modifier for your spell save DCs or on your saving throws could really mess with monsters. You'd have to go through and adjust all their stats to deal with the additional power that players COULD hit.

[CantigThimble]

This makes feats weaker because characters will be strongly motivated to take at least one more ASI. Humans will be weakened in comparison to races that give +2 to a primary stat of their class. Clerics and Druids will be slightly weakened in comparison to other classes because no race gives +2 to wisdom. Mountain Dwarves will benefit this more than any other race.

[dickerson76]

It upsets game balance by breaking bounded accuracy. It breaks it by the smallest amount possible (+1), but it still falls outside the expectations on which the game was founded.

That said, giving a race a +2 to a stat doesn't mean that they excel at those fields more than other races. Rather, it is meant to (and statistically does) make the average stat score for that race higher than for a race that does not get that same stat boost. Your average dwarf is strong than your average halfling. The strongest dwarf is not stronger than the strongest halfling. It's up to the DM to describe why.

Personally, I go with tendon frailty. All the muscle mass in the world won't help you lift an object if your tendon detaches from a bone. Dwarves are more muscular on average, but that just means that they reach their threshold of tendon damage more easily. A halfling has to put more hours in at the gym before they reach that same point, but they eventually get there too.

Also note that stat scores you find on PCs are abnormal. You wouldn't generate such stats for the common folk.

[Foxhound438]

seems fine to me. Only caveat would be that you'd need to take this into account when designing encounters; enemies later on should get bumps to their stats to match the party's, or at least the party should be seeing harder fights.

[Gtdead]

Imo it would be better if you give him an item that increases his strength over the limit. It's less invasive and you can take notes on the balance.

Expect a 22 str character to do at least 15% more dpr against the tougher enemies of AC 17+. And the stronger the monster, the stronger these bonuses become. GWM builds will see a definite increase. And keep in mind that power goes to power. When you stack effects, the power of the character grows exponentially. So don't go too crazy with magic weapons.

If you feel that the characters become too strong, increase the monster AC/Saves by 1. This should almost completely counter the effect.

[SharkForce]

probably wouldn't be a major problem for attack rolls, saving throws, or skill checks. no such guarantee for save DCs at high levels, though low levels are unlikely to be a huge problem.

slightly higher save DCs start to cause problems fairly quickly.

as a result, that will tend to more strongly encourage specific race/class combinations for any class that relies somewhat on save DCs. not sure i'm a huge fan of that.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Imo it would be better if you give him an item that increases his strength over the limit. It's less invasive and you can take notes on the balance.

I was going to say I like the idea of higher racial characteristic maximums because it actually makes certain magic items less valuable/important in the game. This reinforces one of the things I really like about 5E: characters aren't as reliant on magic items to begin with. Anyway, given that there are already items which can boost stats over the limit, and they don't stack with a character's base score, I don't think this will affect game balance much at all; it's just a different means of getting those high stats, with a steep opportunity cost. (Spending an extra ASI.)

[longshotist]

If your race got +1 or +2 in a ability score he/she can raise it to a maximum of 22 instead, to better simulate that for example a sturdy dwarf STR fighter is stronger then a halfling STR fighter. :)

imo i would not recommend this option. the racial bonuses reflect that an average member of the race will have better than average in those abilities. an all around average dwarf is going to be stronger than a run of the mill halfling. but an exceptionally strong member of either of those races with the same numeral for an ability will be equal, it will just take more effort for one of them to reach that point.

the ability score numbers are static, and in my mind i consider 18 to be the absolute limit for normal humanoid beings. above that is getting superhuman. having an 18 in strength doesn't mean you're a pretty strong guy - it means you have reached the pinnacle of strength that a normal humanoid being can reach. remember, if 10 is average, then even a score of 12 means you're above average. 15-16 getting into olympic level athletes or advanced degree level academics.

[Theodoxus]

It upsets game balance by breaking bounded accuracy. It breaks it by the smallest amount possible (+1), but it still falls outside the expectations on which the game was founded.

O.o breaks? The game includes items (both of the theft-worthy: Belts of whatever, and non-theft-worthy: tomes of yadda yadda) that boost attributes above 20. Can't break something when the very laws of the fabric of the multiverse include ways to go beyond...

Plus BA can't really be broken. The goal posts can be moved; two characters can have widely disparate scores when attempting the same thing - to the point where one could auto-succeed against the other in a contested challenge - but that doesn't mean BA is broken. It's working as intended.

Unless we're talking AL (which I'm assuming not, since the OP is talking about homebrew), then it simply falls to the DM to make sure the challenge is appropriate for boosted PCs.

BA isn't a sacred cow. It's not a holy grail. It's an attempt to keep the d20 relevant for the longest period of the characters lives - but making the margin of error smaller - reducing the relevancy of the die isn't "bad". It's really hard to optimize to the point that it's irrelevant all together - that's the point of BA. But if you end up with a skill or attack bonus that allows for the impossible to become common place - that's not breaking BA.

At worst, you can adopt a 3.P stance, where if everyone in the party can make a DC 20 check 85% of the time, then DC 20 doesn't mean it's near impossible anymore. Boost the DCs to the 30s. It's less realistic in some ways. "Why isn't the DC to know what the creature is a 15 anymore? Just because I'm better at knowing what it might be?!?" Probably because it's a unique being from another world you've never heard of and never even knew existed. Sure, roll - maybe you can make the DC 35 check to know what this thing is...


@ the OP, I wouldn't do it personally - too many races get only +1, and a 21 is meaningless... If you were to do it, I suggest modding all the races to get a +2 bonus to one thing and no other attribute bonuses... give them something to compensate - tool or language proficiency, perhaps.

ETA:
the ability score numbers are static, and in my mind i consider 18 to be the absolute limit for normal humanoid beings. above that is getting superhuman. having an 18 in strength doesn't mean you're a pretty strong guy - it means you have reached the pinnacle of strength that a normal humanoid being can reach. remember, if 10 is average, then even a score of 12 means you're above average. 15-16 getting into olympic level athletes or advanced degree level academics.

This gets back to the basic problem I have with RPGs in general (regardless of genre or medium). You might think that a 16 Dex means a sniper marksman in the Rangers or something - but it doesn't. An 18 Int isn't on par with Einstein. It's an abstraction, and on some days, that 16 Dex means you hit your target at 200 meters, and some days it means you can't hit the broadside of the barn. When the d20 is the largest factor on whether you hit something, know something or can run 100 miles in a day - your attributes mean pretty much null in the real world. Sure, somethings, like Strength are fairly easy to be objective with, since it states how much you can lift/pull/drag... but a real guy who only works on arm days, and skips leg days, won't have the reflected jump distance you would otherwise expect... and vice versa. So, even Strength is ultimately an abstraction that works in game, but should stay there.