So how bad would it honestly be if racial stats were variable?

[ChampionWiggles]

This is just a curiosity thing, but I'm curious at how bad it would throw off game balance if all races had the option to just choose their stat bonuses, much like the Variant Human. In fact, why not just give each race the variant to add +1 to 2 ability scores of their choosing? I know a lot of optimizers choose race based on the racial stat bonuses that benefit their class most, but I'm curious if given this choice would allow people to play the character they want without having to deal with lagging behind due to not playing the race to a class's strength. Go ahead and play that Tiefling Cleric and not worry about your terrible starting Spell Save DC, because you can choose to boost CON and WIS +1 instead of CHA +2 and INT +1!

[othaero]

A house rule I do is allow players to switch the scores around. Some of the races with weaker abilities get more than the +1/2 (I'm looking at you Mountain Dwarf) and I haven't noticed the game breaking too much. I feel it allows players more latitude with coming up with new characters. IMO it makes you more likely to make the character you want instead of picking the race that you don't want because it has better stat bonuses.

[Unoriginal]

You're not "lagging behind" if you don't start with a 16, you know.

As to what it'd do to allow to put your stat bonuses anywhere? Well, it'd remove some of the species' identity.

[Davrix]

You're not "lagging behind" if you don't start with a 16, you know.

As to what it'd do to allow to put your stat bonuses anywhere? Well, it'd remove some of the species' identity.

Problem is some of the race identity for some just plain sucks compared to others. Some are just far better and others far worse. *Cough* dragonborn

Personally though I think while this would not break the game, it would take away the identity of the race. What you might consider is a sub-race. Locking one of the races main stats while letting the other shift to another and work around that concept. It will let you expand your world maybe and the player might come up with interesting idea's on how to role-play it. This at least keeps race identity in tact and lets players feel a little less confined if your using the base stat array.

[Quoz]

I think it is much more of a flavor thing than a mechanics thing. An elf is more dexterous as a baseline than an orc, gnomes are clever tinkerers, tieflings are self assured, ect. Adventurers are as a rule exceptional specimens of their race, but the most exceptional orc will be stronger than the most exceptional halfling.

Mechanically there is little wrong with more flexibility at your own table. You can also have rolled stats, free first level feats, or any other homebrew you want to come up with. It is all about setting the world you want to create. So long as everyone at the table goes along, it is all good.

[Khrysaes]

Well, I remember reading somewhere that all races are supposed to equal ~3 ASI/feats. If you look at base human as a fulcrum, and balance all other races based on this, it can be quite confusing.

For example.

Human. +1 To 6 stats. =3 as I.
V. Human, +1to 2 stats and a feat = 2 asi. +1 skill = 1/3 of a feat.
Half elf, +1 to 2 stats, +2 to one,= 2 asi. 2 skills = 2/3 of a feat. Which means charm and sleep resistance, and darkvision is 1/3 of a feat.
Elf +1 To 1 stat, +2 To 1, = 1.5 asi. Darkvision, charm/sleep resist, and perception is 2/3 of an ask.
High elf subrace, 4 weapon proficiency = .5 asi, cantrip = 1/3 an asi.
Other elf subrace features, not counting the +1, gain ~8/10ths of an ask.

And then it can be continued.

Ranting aside, I don't think giving the option to change ability scores to others would break anything. I think it opens up more interesting chatacters.

Edit. I hate autocorrect.

[Theodoxus]

Adventurers are as a rule exceptional specimens of their race, but the most exceptional orc will be stronger than the most exceptional halfling.

At first level... eventually, they'll end up exactly as strong as one another - it just takes the halfling a little longer to get there... So, meh.

I had a DM who "solved' the "lagging behind" problem by granting two different arrays. If you picked the standard array, you could apply racial bonuses normally. But he also provided a second array that granted a 16 as it's top stat. But, if you did so, you didn't get to use your racials bonuses, outside of a +1 Con for Mountain Dwarves, 3 (+1s) for human (he wasn't using feats, so vhuman wasn't an option) or +1 Cha for Half-elves). The second array allowed anyone to start with a 16 (or 17 depending), so dwarf bards and tieflings rogues were "playable".

I, on the other hand, just changed the way attributes are generated. Using a d6 to generate mods between -1 and +4.

[Angelalex242]

3 ASIs huh?

Wow.

Imagine if that's what humans got:

3 ASIs at level 1, to spend as you please.

This would let humans start with 20 in any stat of their choice, if they wanted.

Racial features of other classes start looking very unimpressive, don't they?

[Beelzebubba]

I do like the idea that was dropped in beta was to have each of the racial stats give +1 (instead of a +2 and a +1), and have the class grant +1 to the primary ability. With Bounded Accuracy, that would create a substantial enough amount of 'drift' between different members of the same race, I'd think.

I wonder why they dropped that idea, it sounds excellent. Did it smack too much of 4e for their survey respondents, or open up some crazy exploits I'm too dim to figure out myself?

[Aett_Thorn]

I do like the idea that was dropped in beta was to have each of the racial stats give +1 (instead of a +2 and a +1), and have the class grant +1 to the primary ability. With Bounded Accuracy, that would create a substantial enough amount of 'drift' between different members of the same race, I'd think.

I wonder why they dropped that idea, it sounds excellent. Did it smack too much of 4e for their survey respondents, or open up some crazy exploits I'm too dim to figure out myself?

Well, if the class gives +1 to the ‘primary’ stat, I could think of a few places where that might cause some issues, but not really an exploit or anything. Sure, a Wizard is going to like a +1 to Int, but a fighter can be either Str or Dex, but his ‘primary’ stat is Str, so if the +1 went only to Str, did Dex fighters get screwed?

[Dr. Cliché]

Well, if the class gives +1 to the ‘primary’ stat, I could think of a few places where that might cause some issues, but not really an exploit or anything. Sure, a Wizard is going to like a +1 to Int, but a fighter can be either Str or Dex, but his ‘primary’ stat is Str, so if the +1 went only to Str, did Dex fighters get screwed?

They could just give you the choice of whether to put the +1 in Strength or Dex?

[DigoDragon]

Edit. I hate autocorrect.

Wow, it wasn't even consistent with messing around. o.o

But I got the jist of what you're saying. I remember this document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ViqLSEN67mmd2Lo_OJ-H5YX0fccsfI97kFaqx7V1Dmw/pub) was pretty useful for looking at race features as point costs.



Well, if the class gives +1 to the ‘primary’ stat, I could think of a few places where that might cause some issues, but not really an exploit or anything. Sure, a Wizard is going to like a +1 to Int, but a fighter can be either Str or Dex, but his ‘primary’ stat is Str, so if the +1 went only to Str, did Dex fighters get screwed?

They could just give you the choice of whether to put the +1 in Strength or Dex?

Yeah, I too was thinking that you could get a choice of two stats to place that +1 in. Helps MAD classes the most.

[Talamare]

Check out my Variant Races in my signature, tho I did make it when only PHB existed.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Personally though I think while this would not break the game, it would take away the identity of the race.
Why? Boosting an ability score is far and away the least interesting thing a race does. It's a small numerical boost that gets lost in the shuffle of point-buy/rolling, ASIs, and d20 rolls. A race's identity is bound up in its features. A Hill Dwarf isn't tough because they've got a Con boost, they're tough because they get bonus hit points and can shrug off poison. A Half Orc isn't a savage warrior because they have a Str boost, they're savage warriors because they have super-crits.

Personally, I like removing racial stat bumps altogether and giving +2 to one score and +1 to another. Gives you much more freedom to make unconventional characters without feeling like you're losing out somehow.

[Mister_Squinty]

A compromise that has worked for me is to keep the +2 primary (DX for elves, CN for dwarves, etc) and allow the player to assign the +1 freely. With point buy, this allows Halfling Clerics to start on the same level as Hill Dwarven ones, while keeping most of the traditional racial differences.

[Unoriginal]

A compromise that has worked for me is to keep the +2 primary (DX for elves, CN for dwarves, etc) and allow the player to assign the +1 freely. With point buy, this allows Halfling Clerics to start on the same level as Hill Dwarven ones, while keeping most of the traditional racial differences.

They both start at the same level.

[Knaight]

From a balance perspective it should be fine.


As to what it'd do to allow to put your stat bonuses anywhere? Well, it'd remove some of the species' identity.
While this is somewhat true it's also very possible to let PCs vary and keep NPC stats distributed differently. If every race had the 3-18 scale for every stat, PCs could generate stats as they saw fit, and NPC stat distributions had skews (e.g. 4d6 best three for good stats, 4d6 worst three for bad stats) it would keep the feel, at least for races that are relatively close. Something like a giant shouldn't have that 3-18 scale at all, but an orc? No problem there.

[KorvinStarmast]

But I got the jist of what you're saying. I remember this document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ViqLSEN67mmd2Lo_OJ-H5YX0fccsfI97kFaqx7V1Dmw/pub) was pretty useful for looking at race features as point costs.
I think that's an interesting document, but find darkvision 60' getting only .5 to be of dubious value assignment. That said, I appreciate the effort that went into that.

[Easy_Lee]

As others have said, races are interesting because of their racial features, not their attributes. I'd also remove attributes from races and use point buy 31 (instead of 27) for attributes. There are calculators that can do this for you.

The non-variant human suffers under this approach since they're nothing but their attributes. It might make sense to let them keep four of their six +1's unless you want to go all-variant or award new racial features (such as those in Xanathar's). The latter might not be a bad idea in general to make race choice more interesting.

[Khrysaes]

3 ASIs huh?

Wow.

Imagine if that's what humans got:

3 ASIs at level 1, to spend as you please.

This would let humans start with 20 in any stat of their choice, if they wanted.

Racial features of other classes start looking very unimpressive, don't they?

I would assume that you shouldnt be allowed stack all 6 points into one ability score. However, +2 to 3 of them, or +1 to 6, or some combination would probably be fine.

[Mister_Squinty]

They both start at the same level.

The same spell attack bonus, saving throw difficulty, and number of spells prepared then.

[Angelalex242]

Why not? Humans get 0 racial attributes.

If the humans can start with a 20 in any stat of their choosing because why not, that sure explains why humans tend to be the dominant race, doesn't it?

Elves and Dwarves have to work 8 levels for that 20 int wizard. Humans start with 20 int.

[Willie the Duck]

Imagine...
3 ASIs at level 1, to spend as you please.
This would let humans start with 20 in any stat of their choice,



I think that's an interesting document, but find darkvision 60' getting only .5 to be of dubious value assignment. That said, I appreciate the effort that went into that.


I would assume that you shouldnt be allowed stack all 6 points into one ability score. However, +2 to 3 of them, or +1 to 6, or some combination would probably be fine.

Well, the 'to spend as you please' part is the leap that clearly doesn't show up in the game, as written. If you use standard array or point buy, you have to make do with a max of 17 at 1st level, and that seems to be considered 'part of the fun' of those methods over 4dice6/best3.

But beyond that, I think what this points out is that, on a design level, racial benefits aren't quite truly these modular, interchangeable bits that you can build a race with (like a GURPS-style point-buy). So the mountain dwarf 'gets' the +2 Str and Con because the classes that most benefit from these stats will find its' other benefits redundant. The Yuan ti 'gets' resistance to spells (a relatively awesome ability), but pays for it with stat bonuses that are hard to cobble together into an OP build. The lizardfolk get a bunch of abilities which separately are pretty awesome (best non-monk unarmed attack, the same ability which makes dragon sorcerers at all good, etc.), but short of a high-Str, high-Dex circle of land druid, exactly what class combo takes advantage of all of those abilities? And so on. The racial abilities clearly do not exist in a vacuum or as modular components, but as a whole where having benefits and stat boosts which conflict on the 'what class/build does this benefit?' scale are considerations to the overall race balance.

That said, in a game designed around a loose enough balance that playing with-or-without feats and with-or-without magic items (being common), swapping the standard +2/+1 to specific attributes for +1/+1 pick which ones you want will absolutely not cause the gears to fly off the system. And it has the advantage of not shoehorning each sub-race into very specific criteria (because honestly, the system as it is might as well have things next to Hill Dwarves saying "this race is meant for nature domain cleric builds, and maybe some other low-str-but-with-heavy-armor-proficiency build you dream up," and I thought we were trying to distance ourselves from that kind of thing).

I'd say go for it, but don't miss the reasons why the specific bonuses where they were placed were put in, and consider how it changes things.

[strangebloke]

Honestly the more I play/DM, the more I want to do this:

Everyone plays with no racial abilities or mods of any kind.

Everyone get's 3 ASIs or feats at first level. You can't give yourself more than a +2 in any one stat, and one feat has to be off of a list of less powerful 'flavorful' feats like skilled or weapon master or savage attacker.

Offer particularly cool racial abilities like magic resistance or Savage Attacks or the dragonborn's breath attack as a feats. Racial feats are open to everyone.

If you want to play as an 'elf' in your game, that's a purely aesthetic and cultural statement. If you want to build a jacked muscular elf, go ahead, but honestly at my table I'd expect people to not do that.

This may or may not be born out of my general distaste for 80% of the species available to players.

[Naanomi]

There are a few races with balancing factors in their stat lines... mountain dwarves with medium armor but no caster stats to best utilize it (and to a lesser degree tortles for similar reasons); purebloods with a strong racial ability but the hard to utilize ‘two caster stats’

You also have to decide what to do with races that lack the +1/+2 stat spread... both humans, mountain dwarves, half elves, tritons

The biggest effect is in expectations... when every sorcerer is a mountain dwarf or every Druid is a half-orc it can start to mess with worldview expectations. This has mechanical ramifications as well; a strength/constitution aarakocra setup is a much different potential at the table to be disruptive than when such builds are discouraged by poor stat synergy

At the end of the day, it isn’t likely to break anything but these are things to be aware of and for some tables may make it not worth the versatility in builds it opens up

[GlenSmash!]

I've wanted to scrap racial stat bonuses and replace them with Class stat bonuses for a while now. I think it would discourage some of the "cookie cutter" builds I sometimes see.

[Naanomi]

I've wanted to scrap racial stat bonuses and replace them with Class stat bonuses for a while now. I think it would discourage some of the "cookie cutter" builds I sometimes see.
Though would be quick to equally punish fringe builds like Strength Rogue or Shillelegh Ranger in favor of ‘cookie cutter’ builds

[Coffee_Dragon]

I've wanted to scrap racial stat bonuses and replace them with Class stat bonuses for a while now. I think it would discourage some of the "cookie cutter" builds I sometimes see.

What would this change do but allow optimizers to attach any race to the cookie cutter builds they currently won't give up in order to play "the character they want"?

[GlenSmash!]

Though would be quick to equally punish fringe builds like Strength Rogue or Shillelegh Ranger in favor of ‘cookie cutter’ builds


What would this change do but allow optimizers to attach any race to the cookie cutter builds they currently won't give up in order to play "the character they want"?

Fair points I hadn't considered. Maybe an optimizer rolling up to my table with a Half-Orc wizard would be a worse thing than I thought.

[Khrysaes]

I've wanted to scrap racial stat bonuses and replace them with Class stat bonuses for a while now. I think it would discourage some of the "cookie cutter" builds I sometimes see.

This is probably the better solution that giving all the races +1/+2 to assign as they please.
Although it would nerf races like Helf, Mountain Dwarf, Triton, Etc. Would also improve the Orc and Kobold.

I would say Barbarian can place a +2 in STR or CON, gains a +1 to the other one.

Bard + 2 in Cha or DEX, +1 in the other.

Cleric +2 .. wis or ?

Druid same as cleric?

Fighter +2 STR, DEX, or CON, +1 to one of the others?

Monk, +2 DEX, WIS, or CON, +1 to one of the others.

Paladin, +2 CHA, STR, or CON, +1 to one of the others. Dex option?

Ranger, Same as monk? allow STR?

Rogue, +2 DEX, CON, or INT, +1 to one of the others, maybe allow a cha option?

Sorcerer, +2 CHA or CON, +1 other one?

Warlock, Same as Sorc? Allow dex or str?

Wizard, +2 INT, DEX, or CON, +1 to one of the others?

[Naanomi]

I’ve toyed with some variation of +2 from race, +1 from class before, seems to be a good balance of ‘races are good at certain things’ and ‘anyone can be good at anything’

[rbstr]

I see the set bonuses as part of the identity of the particular race and wouldn't want them gone entirely.
But I do think they should have less impact.

IMO the race should give a +1 to something and then have the +2 be able to go wherever and split up to two +1s if you want.

So Elves would get +1 dex and +2 to whatever.

[Laserlight]

I would allow players to put +2 and +1 ( or 3 x +1) into whatever stats they want, in lieu of racial bonus.

I think if, say, dragonborn are relying on their stats rather than their other racial abilities to be distinctive, that means their other abilities need to be made more definitive. Particularly since everyone gets capped at stat max 20; I think it would be reasonable to vary the maximum stat by race--gnomes get a max 14 STR, for instance, elves get a max 22 DEX--but I don't imagine WoTC will ever do that.

[Mister_Squinty]

but I don't imagine WoTC will ever do that.

Given that those racial stat limits used to exist in earlier versions of D&D and were removed, I imagine you are right. :smallsmile:

[Theodoxus]

But beyond that, I think what this points out is that, on a design level, racial benefits aren't quite truly these modular, interchangeable bits that you can build a race with (like a GURPS-style point-buy). So the mountain dwarf 'gets' the +2 Str and Con because the classes that most benefit from these stats will find its' other benefits redundant. The Yuan ti 'gets' resistance to spells (a relatively awesome ability), but pays for it with stat bonuses that are hard to cobble together into an OP build. The lizardfolk get a bunch of abilities which separately are pretty awesome (best non-monk unarmed attack, the same ability which makes dragon sorcerers at all good, etc.), but short of a high-Str, high-Dex circle of land druid, exactly what class combo takes advantage of all of those abilities? And so on. The racial abilities clearly do not exist in a vacuum or as modular components, but as a whole where having benefits and stat boosts which conflict on the 'what class/build does this benefit?' scale are considerations to the overall race balance.

Other than half-orc barbarians proving the rule... every thing they get synergizes with barbarian, and there isn't anything they get that doesn't...

meant to add - unless we DMs are supposed to be jerks to HOrcs and their players - that that social aspect is the offsetting difference... But I don't tend to do that to my players, much.

[Willie the Duck]

Other than half-orc barbarians proving the rule... every thing they get synergizes with barbarian, and there isn't anything they get that doesn't...

meant to add - unless we DMs are supposed to be jerks to HOrcs and their players - that that social aspect is the offsetting difference... But I don't tend to do that to my players, much.

I don't see how that is an 'other than' case. Yes, the half-orc has stats and abilities which synergize extremely well with barbarians (or Champion fighters). But they don't have any added special bonus that is offset with the fact that some of their abilities are dis-synergistic. That would be something like +2str, +2 Con, but an ability relatively useless to most Str-dependent builds.

Simply finding a wholly synergistic race-class combo isn't that hard. Wood elves and rangers, for instance, or hill dwarves and nature cleric, half elf and bard (or any cha-based, really, but that's another topic).

[jollydm]

At first level... eventually, they'll end up exactly as strong as one another - it just takes the halfling a little longer to get there... So, meh.

I had a DM who "solved' the "lagging behind" problem by granting two different arrays. If you picked the standard array, you could apply racial bonuses normally. But he also provided a second array that granted a 16 as it's top stat. But, if you did so, you didn't get to use your racials bonuses, outside of a +1 Con for Mountain Dwarves, 3 (+1s) for human (he wasn't using feats, so vhuman wasn't an option) or +1 Cha for Half-elves). The second array allowed anyone to start with a 16 (or 17 depending), so dwarf bards and tieflings rogues were "playable".

I, on the other hand, just changed the way attributes are generated. Using a d6 to generate mods between -1 and +4.

13th Age does this. Your race gives you the option of one ASI, and your class gives you the other.

[strangebloke]

The design is pretty smart in that the more common races are more generally adaptable to more classes.

Human: anything
Elf: everything except barbarian
Dwarf: not great rogues, monks, or rangers.
Dragonborn: Paladin, fighter, barbarian
Lizard folk: druid? Low wisdom monk?

The weirder the race the more niche it's usage.

[Consensus]

Elf: everything except barbarian
Dwarf: not great rogues, monks, or rangers.

Disagree, DEX barbs are good, STRogues are perfectly viable, armored monks are a thing and also STRanger is fine, and you dont need a racial WIS boost to have a 14, and 17 str and con will more than make up for it.

[strangebloke]

Disagree, DEX barbs are good, STRogues are perfectly viable, armored monks are a thing and also STRanger is fine, and you dont need a racial WIS boost to have a 14, and 17 str and con will more than make up for it.

Well, you're only reinforcing my point, so who am I to disagree?:smallbiggrin:

I'm aware that such builds exist. But if you want to build a dex barbarian, you're going to be a little more limited than a STR barbarian. So it might be more appropriate to say that Elves can be good barbarians, but are not always good barbarians. It's much easier to build a bad DEX barbarian than it is to build a bad STR barbarian.

Once again, though, you're agreeing with my larger point so I'm not super interested in quibbling over details.

[Wryte]

Why? Boosting an ability score is far and away the least interesting thing a race does. It's a small numerical boost that gets lost in the shuffle of point-buy/rolling, ASIs, and d20 rolls. A race's identity is bound up in its features. A Hill Dwarf isn't tough because they've got a Con boost, they're tough because they get bonus hit points and can shrug off poison. A Half Orc isn't a savage warrior because they have a Str boost, they're savage warriors because they have super-crits.

Personally, I like removing racial stat bumps altogether and giving +2 to one score and +1 to another. Gives you much more freedom to make unconventional characters without feeling like you're losing out somehow.

I'd disagree. The ASIs might not be as interesting in and of themselves as other racial traits, but they still go a long way to defining a race's strengths, especially when they're the the only way to start with a +3 instead of a +2 in point buy.

I like Othaero's suggestion of allowing players to swap their race's +2 and +1. That adds more flexibility without totally removing the flavor.

[Davrix]

Why? Boosting an ability score is far and away the least interesting thing a race does. It's a small numerical boost that gets lost in the shuffle of point-buy/rolling, ASIs, and d20 rolls. A race's identity is bound up in its features. A Hill Dwarf isn't tough because they've got a Con boost, they're tough because they get bonus hit points and can shrug off poison. A Half Orc isn't a savage warrior because they have a Str boost, they're savage warriors because they have super-crits.

Personally, I like removing racial stat bumps altogether and giving +2 to one score and +1 to another. Gives you much more freedom to make unconventional characters without feeling like you're losing out somehow.

I don't disagree with that view but the scores do represent at least in part the races identity. Half-orc's get str because they do have super crits. The hill dwarf con, is a refection of the hit points and shrug off poison feature. So the stats are a numerical value based on their abilities or traits as a race.

This is why I suggest a sub race because I like having players be creative and design things if they are willing. Granted not everyone has that mindset so I suggest an idea of what might be fitting for a sub race for them. But I am of the belief that if you simply let them take any stat bump they wish then its simply making it a numbers choice for optimization rather than picking a race / class that is against the norm and you have to deal with the slightly non optimal stats for said combo.

But really your view is perfectly valid way to do it I just feel like if you want to change the stats around, why not try to be creative about it rather then simply switching numbers around on paper.

[MxKit]

I don't think it would be bad at all. Actually, Mearls has already said on Twitter that if he were making D&D 5e again knowing what he knows now, he might have made the starting stat adjustments dependent on class rather than tying them to race at all.

Personally, I've always liked the idea of race or subrace giving the character their +1, and class giving the character their +2, with many of the options giving a choice. Makes for far less cookie-cutter builds, and if you're afraid of someone munchkining, just don't allow them in your game. Something like, for some basic examples...

Hill Dwarf: +1 Con or +1 Wis
Mountain Dwarf: +1 Con or +1 Str
High Elf: +1 Dex or +1 Int
Wood Elf: +1 Dex or +1 Wis
Drow: +1 Dex or +1 Cha
Lightfoot Halfling: +1 Dex or +1 Cha
Stout Halfling: +1 Dex or +1 Con
Default Human: +1 to any four scores of your choice
Variant Human: +1 to any score of your choice

Barbarian: +2 Str or +2 Con
Bard: +2 Cha
Cleric: +2 Wis
Druid: +2 Wis
Fighter: +2 Str or +2 Dex
Monk: +2 Dex or +2 Wis
Paladin: +2 Cha
Ranger: +2 Dex or +2 Wis
Rogue: +2 any
Sorcerer: +2 Cha or +2 Con
Warlock: +2 Cha
Wizard: +2 Int

This is just off the top of my head, some tweaking might make it work better, but it seems fairly solid to me. As it is, a Mountain Dwarf Wizard is just going to put their Strength at 8 to dump their +2 into it anyway, so it's not like they're going to be representing their race at being strong, and they'll be getting their Intelligence up to max if they want to anyway. This would give them the opportunity to start with +2 Int and +1 Con, which seems fine to me.

And sure, a minmaxer might go "I can be a Lightfoot Halfling Warlock and get a starting +3 to Charisma!!" but then they'll be below where they could be in every other stat and mixmaxers will minmax anyway so an extra +1 feels pretty "meh" to me; an optimizer might be tempted to argue that you'd still want to avoid races like High Elf if you're making a Strength-based Barbarian, but at the same time it allows for more variety because getting a +1 to a stat you don't need isn't that big a deal when you're guaranteed a good +2 stat, so why not be a Wood Elf Strength-based Fighter? It's not going to set you back much at all.

(Also, as a side thought, if a Kobold is still -2 to Strength, it still makes Kobold Barbarians more viable, which is kind of hilarious to me. Sure, you don't get the +2, but it just cancels out your weakness, so why not! Rage out and stab people furiously in the knees, little Kobold, nothing can hold you back!)

[Eunostus]

To me, the most elegant option seems to be getting a specific +1 from your race, a +1 from your class, and a +1 you can choose freely. This way a race's ability scores are still slightly defining, but you can still get those 16’s with point buy with a non-standard race/class combo. And I would love to play a Yuan-Ti fighter or a Half-Orc sorcerer.

[Wryte]

This is just off the top of my head, some tweaking might make it work better, but it seems fairly solid to me. As it is, a Mountain Dwarf Wizard is just going to put their Strength at 8 to dump their +2 into it anyway, so it's not like they're going to be representing their race at being strong, and they'll be getting their Intelligence up to max if they want to anyway. This would give them the opportunity to start with +2 Int and +1 Con, which seems fine to me.

On the other hand, those ASIs can sometimes inspire off the wall character concepts in the first place. I have a mountain dwarf wizard that I've been looking for an opportunity to play for a good while now, who uses her pluses to Strength and Con along with her weapon and armor proficiencies to wade into melee alongside her undead minions as a necromancy specialist.

[Coffee_Dragon]

To me, the most elegant option seems to be getting a specific +1 from your race, a +1 from your class, and a +1 you can choose freely.

+1 from class and +1 freely sounds effectively equivalent to +2 freely for the premise of wanting to play FooRace FooClass and always get a 16.

[Honest Tiefling]

I do it. Outside of double mental stats (Yuan-Ti, Tiefling, etc.), allowing different racial ability combos doesn't make the race more powerful, just able to do different classes well. And even then, it's not really a huge issue of power. Oh no, the tieflings became better wizards? Probably not going to break the game except for Yuan-ti, who if I recall correctly, weren't meant to be balanced anyway.

However I've found that even new or non-optimizers like having that beefy 16 in their primary stat, even if it's not all that game-breaking. It also helps if that is how they think of their character, and they feel like they can play what they want to play.

When I DM my next game (stupid player wrangling), I'm going to try imposing a limit on character races: You can only put your +2 into the two ability scores your race normally got a bonus to. So Wood Elves can be +2 Wisdom and +1 anything else or +2 Dexterity and +1 anything else. Some race/class combos are still a little wonky for some concepts, but I feel like it should be flexible enough to accommodate a whole lot more concepts.

Besides, any DM worth their Mountain Dew should be able to give the races enough flavor and appeal by fluff alone. The players will survive a few beefy elves.

[mephnick]

Disagree, DEX barbs are good, STRogues are perfectly viable, armored monks are a thing and also STRanger is fine, and you dont need a racial WIS boost to have a 14, and 17 str and con will more than make up for it.

Ehhh.. I've seen good STRogue and STRanger builds but I've never seen a DEX Barb build that's actually convinced me that it's a good option, much less purposefully hindering. If you can point me to one that'd be great, though I know that isn't the point of this thread..

[Wryte]

Ehhh.. I've seen good STRogue and STRanger builds but I've never seen a DEX Barb build that's actually convinced me that it's a good option, much less purposefully hindering. If you can point me to one that'd be great, though I know that isn't the point of this thread..

I played a stout halfling totem barbarian for a while. She started the game with 14 in Str and 16 in Dex and Con, which put her rage attacks only +1/+1 behind optimal, but gave her a naked AC of 16/18 depending if she was wielding her battleaxe in two hands or with a shield. At 4th level I picked up Dual Wielder and used TWF with dual battleaxes, which gave me an extra 1d8 damage per turn with 17 AC. I also picked the Eagle Totem, which allows causes opportunity attacks against you to be made with disadvantage. Pair that with Halfling Nimbleness allowing me to move through spaces occupied by anything a size larger than me, and I was dancing through hordes of orcs hacking off kneecaps with impunity. My damage was a little behind optimal, but my defense and mobility were much better than the average barbarian; I was impossible for enemies to pin down or single out.

[jas61292]

This is something hugely dependant on preference. I know some people say that by changing things so that ability scores are not tied to race make characters less cookiecutter. However, in my opinion, that is only true for one aspect of the character, and only for one type of player. More generally, I actually feel that it makes characters more cookiecutter.

Sure, you will make it so a monk is far less likely to be a wood elf and dragonborn Paladins are not so much more common than other dragonborn class combos, but the diversity in actual character abilities will decrease. Every single monk will start with Dex and Wis bonuses. Every single sorcerer will have a charisma bonus, along side Dex or Con. And you can just forget about ever seeing a strength bonus on a Wizard. And while this might sound like not that much of a change to some people, outside of the optimization bubble we often live in, it is big.

The reason for this is that while many people are happy to accept a mechanical sacrifice for conceptual reasons, far fewer are willing to do so for its own sake. And race is a huge part of any concept, and so taking a small hit to a stat is fine when it is for the sake of having the proper race. If you really want to play a half orc wizard, you do so accepting you will not start with 16 Int. And that is fine. But if you can be a Half Orc wizard AND start with 16 Int, you most likely will, because the race was the key part of the concept, not the racial modifiers. After all, people are far more likely to have a concept of Gnome Paladin than High Int Paladin.

So while superficially, separating abilities from races might cause optimizers to appear to have more variety by increasing the number of common class and race combos, underneath the hood, characters as a whole will tend to end up far more uniform, just with different coats of paint.