Crazy idea: No racial stat bonuses

[Rebonack]

For the sake of argument we'll say the standard array changes to 16 14 14 12 10 8 or something similar.

So!

Races no longer get any stat bonuses. Instead they get racial abilities, skill proficiencies, and the like. So with another feat and a half worth of racial abilities to concoct (or, you know, actually create some features in the case of Human), how do you think this would impact racial choices? Do you think this would be more interesting than the present set up? I suspect it would certainly open up a much wider field of race/class combinations.

[Man_Over_Game]

For the sake of argument we'll say the standard array changes to 16 14 14 12 10 8 or something similar.

So!

Races no longer get any stat bonuses. Instead they get racial abilities, skill proficiencies, and the like. So with another feat and a half worth of racial abilities to concoct (or, you know, actually create some features in the case of Human), how do you think this would impact racial choices? Do you think this would be more interesting than the present set up? I suspect it would certainly open up a much wider field of race/class combinations.

One particular idea someone had was to remove subraces for each race and replace them with specific feats (so you could be an elf with Keen Mind [aristocrat], Observant [Hunter], Dungeon Delver [Drow], or Magic Initiate [caster])

[thereaper]

I would prefer to see every race get +1 to one stat of their choice, with a choice of racial abilities, so that every race can be good at every class.

[NaughtyTiger]

I would prefer to see every race get +1 to one stat of their choice, with a choice of racial abilities, so that every race can be good at every class.

every race already can be good at every class.

[thereaper]

If that's your stance, then there's no need for any changes.

[JNAProductions]

If that's your stance, then there's no need for any changes.

I mean, there isn't-at least, not changes needed to make the game WORK. The game works fine.

You can tweak it to your personal preferences, but it's a functioning system.

And honestly, I think it's okay that High Elves make better Wizards (at least, in casting stat) than Half-Orcs. They can ultimately hit the same point (Int 20) while having different racials, but the High Elf will hit it sooner. And that's okay.

You can BE a Half-Orc Wizard and not be excessively gimped. You're weaker, in most ways that matter, relative to a High Elf (lower casting stat, worse AC usually, less cantrips) and stronger in ways that sometimes matter (better HP and Constitution saves, avoid death once/long rest) and sometimes don't (better Strength, Intimidation proficiency) but you can play in the same party and not feel overshadowed assuming both are played competently.

[Unoriginal]

every race already can be good at every class.

Indeed.


If that's your stance, then there's no need for any changes.

That is correct, there is no *need* for any changes.


Wanting a change is not needing a change, and wanting a change is subjective.



And honestly, I think it's okay that High Elves make better Wizards (at least, in casting stat) than Half-Orcs. They can ultimately hit the same point (Int 20) while having different racials, but the High Elf will hit it sooner. And that's okay.

You can BE a Half-Orc Wizard and not be excessively gimped. You're weaker, in most ways that matter, relative to a High Elf (lower casting stat, worse AC usually, less cantrips) and stronger in ways that sometimes matter (better HP and Constitution saves, avoid death once/long rest) and sometimes don't (better Strength, Intimidation proficiency) but you can play in the same party and not feel overshadowed assuming both are played competently.

You might be *slightly* weaker at straight up wizard magic if you take Half-Orc instead of an High Elf, but you're certainly not a weaker *adventurer*.

[Pex]

If you roll for scores you have a chance of getting the high prime ability score you want when playing a race that doesn't have a +# to it.

[JNAProductions]

You might be *slightly* weaker at straight up wizard magic if you take Half-Orc instead of an High Elf, but you're certainly not a weaker *adventurer*.

At low levels, I agree.
At mid levels, I think you'll feel it. ESPECIALLY levels 4-11, when you're behind an entire ASI and Relentless Endurance stops coming up so much.
At high levels, like 12+, I think it pretty much evens out now that you both have 20 Int.

[LudicSavant]

I generally feel that racial ability scores are vestigial in 5e. They are a sacred cow, held over from a design purpose that no longer exists in this edition.

They certainly don't add any in-world flavor. No race different from a (non-variant) human by a factor of more than + or -1 in any given attribute, which on its own isn't even enough to make any different in rolls at all (it takes 2 points to actually make a difference in rolls) and doesn't actually create a world where the world's strongest man and the world's strongest orc are different (they're both going to have a 20 Strength. Usually at the same level for strength builds, even. Actually sometimes the human will actually hit 20 Strength earlier because of feat schedules with variant humans).

The only thing they really do currently is make some races more or less optimal for certain builds from a meta perspective. It makes a player feel punished for taking the "wrong" flavor concept. All the more egregious because the "wrong" concepts are sometimes quite prominent in the fiction that D&D is meant to emulate.

[Rebonack]

To the question of making some race/class combos 'more viable' I can see both sides of the argument.

On the one side, it can feel a little punitive that you're hitting 20 in your relevant primary stat at level 12 instead of level 8.

On the other, I've played in games with 'off race' class choices and the difference hasn't felt terribly profound. The character in question hasn't ever seemed particularly overshadowed.

It isn't something that is absolutely needing a fix. But it isn't the main target of this idea, either.

The main target here is opening up a little bit of extra design space for assigning racial abilities that are flavorful and thematic. The dragonborn, for example, is oft decried as being rather uninspired in the racial feature department. Another feat and a half worth of racial features could go a long way in making them more interesting.

[Mjolnirbear]

In my Eberron game, all races lose the given ability score increases. Instead, everyone gets three points to distribute as they wish (max +2 to any one ability). Yes, including mountain dwarves and half elves.

There are no variant humans in my game. Instead, humans get an additional stat point, two additional skills, and a once per short rest advantage on a save, check, or attack roll.

It works. People don't feel pressured to pick the 'right' race to fit their class. It opens up more interesting builds and they feel less pressure about choosing sub-optimal feats.

My game is heavily homebrewed, however.

[JNAProductions]

In my Eberron game, all races lose the given ability score increases. Instead, everyone gets three points to distribute as they wish (max +2 to any one ability). Yes, including mountain dwarves and half elves.

There are no variant humans in my game. Instead, humans get an additional stat point, two additional skills, and a once per short rest advantage on a save, check, or attack roll.

It works. People don't feel pressured to pick the 'right' race to fit their class. It opens up more interesting builds and they feel less pressure about choosing sub-optimal feats.

My game is heavily homebrewed, however.

I'd give Mountain Dwarves a little extra. They're a touch lackluster without their +2/+2.

Maybe give them +1 to Con in addition to their 3 points? No more than +2 to Con at creation, but everyone needs it, so it doesn't favor any one class over another.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In my Eberron game, all races lose the given ability score increases. Instead, everyone gets three points to distribute as they wish (max +2 to any one ability). Yes, including mountain dwarves and half elves.

There are no variant humans in my game. Instead, humans get an additional stat point, two additional skills, and a once per short rest advantage on a save, check, or attack roll.

It works. People don't feel pressured to pick the 'right' race to fit their class. It opens up more interesting builds and they feel less pressure about choosing sub-optimal feats.

My game is heavily homebrewed, however.
I do pretty much the same thing. I would much rather have players pick their race based on fluff and interesting racial features than have them feel like they "should" be picking a race with matching stat boosts.

[Son of A Lich!]

I haven't had an opportunity to stat it out for the races, but I've been thinking of a system where the races have a "[Blank] Can't be your Max/[Blank#2] Can't be your Min" idea for stat races.

So Dwarves would have "Constitution can't be your lowest/Charisma can't be your highest" and using a standard array. This way, Dwarves would always be at least a little heartier then other races, but their charisma would always be a little lower, without putting any one race ahead of the curve.

I think Humans would have "Intellect can't be your highest OR lowest", to give other magically adept characters the chance to shine as wizards specifically, but humans would be just as variable.

Just my two cents.

[MaxWilson]

For the sake of argument we'll say the standard array changes to 16 14 14 12 10 8 or something similar.

So!

Races no longer get any stat bonuses. Instead they get racial abilities, skill proficiencies, and the like. So with another feat and a half worth of racial abilities to concoct (or, you know, actually create some features in the case of Human), how do you think this would impact racial choices? Do you think this would be more interesting than the present set up? I suspect it would certainly open up a much wider field of race/class combinations.

*shrug* Could work well enough. 5E's racial differences are fairly vestigial anyway--it was really the old racial minima/maxima that did the heavy lifting of race differentiation at the state level, plus class restrictions. Frankly you could abolish all the non-human races entirely for PCs and just run a campaign with pure humans and it wouldn't have much impact on 5E, mechanically.

[JNAProductions]

*shrug* Could work well enough. 5E's racial differences are fairly vestigial anyway--it was really the old racial minima/maxima that did the heavy lifting of race differentiation at the state level, plus class restrictions. Frankly you could abolish all the non-human races entirely for PCs and just run a campaign with pure humans and it wouldn't have much impact on 5E, mechanically.

No Darkvision would be the most dramatic impact, methinks. For a party that likes to sneak, at least.

[mephnick]

Do you think this would be more interesting than the present set up?

No. The fantasy archetypes that the system is built around is what makes D&D interesting as a system. Elves are supposed to be fast and smart. Orcs are supposed to be strong and stupid. They're there to emulate the pervasive fantasy literature and media our culture has grown with. Universal stat systems are boring because the choices are less meaningful, not more.

[KyleG]

I haven't had an opportunity to stat it out for the races, but I've been thinking of a system where the races have a "[Blank] Can't be your Max/[Blank#2] Can't be your Min" idea for stat races.

So Dwarves would have "Constitution can't be your lowest/Charisma can't be your highest" and using a standard array. This way, Dwarves would always be at least a little heartier then other races, but their charisma would always be a little lower, without putting any one race ahead of the curve.

I think Humans would have "Intellect can't be your highest OR lowest", to give other magically adept characters the chance to shine as wizards specifically, but humans would be just as variable.

Just my two cents.

I like that idea. Perhaps starting with a racial feat also. Be interested in seeing that written out.

[Rebonack]

No. The fantasy archetypes that the system is built around is what makes D&D interesting as a system. Elves are supposed to be fast and smart. Orcs are supposed to be strong and stupid. They're there to emulate the pervasive fantasy literature and media our culture has grown with. Universal stat systems are boring because the choices are less meaningful, not more.

You don't suppose there might be a more compelling way to represent elves being swift or orcs being strong aside from a +2 to Dexterity and Strength, respectively?

[MaxWilson]

No Darkvision would be the most dramatic impact, methinks. For a party that likes to sneak, at least.

It's not like humans don't already use the Darkvision spell anyway in that scenario. Druid, Ranger, Sorcerer, Wizard, Shadow Monk... plenty of ways to get it. Or Goggles of Night if you like permanent items.

In practice sneaking through pitch darkness is a pretty rare scenario anyway, IME, and I'm not sure exactly why because it's super-fun when a real stealth-on-stealth battle occurs.

[Son of A Lich!]

I like that idea. Perhaps starting with a racial feat also. Be interested in seeing that written out.

I personally think feats, given out at odd attribute intervals instead of at level gains in a particular class (And let ASIs be ASIs), could replace multi-classing entirely and give racial feats some interesting development strength.

Yaun-ti not having full spell resistance, but could get it at Strength 11 specifically for Strength saving throws, for example, would make the Yaun-ti character have to choose between that and picking up a sneak attack lite.

But that would also need a spell casting overhaul and if I'm at that point, I might as well make Dungeons and Dragons 5.Lich and I DEFINITELY don't have time for that.

[Unoriginal]

You don't suppose there might be a more compelling way to represent elves being swift or orcs being strong aside from a +2 to Dexterity and Strength, respectively?

I don't, personally.

There are other ways, to be sure, but more compelling ones, in the 5e context? Nope.

[Chronos]

Of course some races are better at some classes than others. The only way around that is to not give them any distinguishing features, at which point, why make them different races?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't, personally.

There are other ways, to be sure, but more compelling ones, in the 5e context? Nope.
So... stuff like Relentless Endurance and Powerful Build don't do a better job of representing a strong and tough race than a bonus to Str and Con? Something like Nimble Escape or Fleet of Foot doesn't do a better job of representing a fast and agile race than a Dex bonus? Stat bonuses which are, at the same time, unimportant because a one-point difference in your modifier isn't going to noticeably affect anything and will soon be wiped out by ASIs?

[EggKookoo]

I believe JC tweeted at one point that he would have moved ability score bonuses to classes but having them tied to races was too much of a sacred cow. I'm agnostic on it -- racial bonuses don't ping on my "concern" meter but I could see them being handled differently.

[Unoriginal]

So... stuff like Relentless Endurance and Powerful Build don't do a better job of representing a strong and tough race than a bonus to Str and Con? Something like Nimble Escape or Fleet of Foot doesn't do a better job of representing a fast and agile race than a Dex bonus? Stat bonuses which are, at the same time, unimportant because a one-point difference in your modifier isn't going to noticeably affect anything and will soon be wiped out by ASIs?

The relationship between stats and traits is not an "either/or to represent X", it's "both help represent X".

Goblins are swift, so are Tabaxi, but they're not swift in the same way. Half-Orcs and Dwarves are both tough, but their toughness isn't the same.

Stat bonuses are mechanically not important, as you said, because the difference will not affect much and be soon erased by ASIs. But they're still thematically relevant, as they are part of the species' identity, just as much as traits like Relentless Endurance or Nimble Escape.

[Throne12]

I wouldn't mind this rule because I play with min/maxer's. I dont want to be the best. But it sucks not being on the same level with the party. I would love too play a something like a goliath rogue.

[mephnick]

So... stuff like Relentless Endurance and Powerful Build don't do a better job of representing a strong and tough race than a bonus to Str and Con? Something like Nimble Escape or Fleet of Foot doesn't do a better job of representing a fast and agile race than a Dex bonus?

To a point, sure. But also much harder to balance. I think they work well together.

I'm just saying some races SHOULD be better for some classes. That's part of the fantasy themes of the system. There aren't supposed to be gnome barbarians because those don't fit the fantasy history the system is trying to emulate. Sure you can do it, but in no way should they be as good as orc barbarians.

[Coffee_Dragon]

People have decided that playing +2/+2 to main stat and CON is just no fun if there's someone with +3/+2. A hat has got to go.

[Rebonack]

The relationship between stats and traits is not an "either/or to represent X", it's "both help represent X".

Goblins are swift, so are Tabaxi, but they're not swift in the same way. Half-Orcs and Dwarves are both tough, but their toughness isn't the same.

Stat bonuses are mechanically not important, as you said, because the difference will not affect much and be soon erased by ASIs. But they're still thematically relevant, as they are part of the species' identity, just as much as traits like Relentless Endurance or Nimble Escape.

What would you say the thematic identity of the human race is?


I'm just saying some races SHOULD be better for some classes. That's part of the fantasy themes of the system. There aren't supposed to be gnome barbarians because those don't fit the fantasy history the system is trying to emulate. Sure you can do it, but in no way should they be as good as orc barbarians.

Arguably they still wouldn't be, even if racial ability scores were dropped and replaced with active or passive racial effects that communicate much the same in-world reality. Extra crit damage, the ability to use larger damage dice weapons, and the ability to shrug off getting knocked to zero (and thus out of rage) is a great set of traits for a barbarian. Being able to talk to squirrels? Maybe not so much.

I'm assuming you mean half-orc here.

Orcs are pretty terrible.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The relationship between stats and traits is not an "either/or to represent X", it's "both help represent X".

Goblins are swift, so are Tabaxi, but they're not swift in the same way. Half-Orcs and Dwarves are both tough, but their toughness isn't the same.

Stat bonuses are mechanically not important, as you said, because the difference will not affect much and be soon erased by ASIs. But they're still thematically relevant, as they are part of the species' identity, just as much as traits like Relentless Endurance or Nimble Escape.
Stat bonuses are invisible. You apply them once and forget about them. Unique racial abilities matter. Something like Relentless Endurance says "I'm tough" at level 1 as much as it does at level 20, and you'll notice it being used in ways that you won't notice a +2 Con.


There aren't supposed to be gnome barbarians because those don't fit the fantasy history the system is trying to emulate. Sure you can do it, but in no way should they be as good as orc barbarians.
D&D isn't emulating anything but D&D; it's become its own unique vision of fantasy over the years. And part of that vision has become "all choices should be viable."

And regardless, Half-Orcs are better Barbarians than Gnomes, because their abilities generally synergize better (particularly in this case, since every one of the Half-Orc features is better on a Barbarian than almost anywhere else). Even with equal stats, a Gnome Barbarian will wind up looking different because their unique racial abilities will be different.

You can't have it both ways. Either stat boosts are significant, in which case you are effectively being punished for choosing to play a non-stereotype, or they're largely irrelevant, in which case they do a poor job of representing a unique aspect of the race.

[EggKookoo]

What if instead of proficiency, a class provided a racial stat for an ability if your race provides one. So a dwarf gets its +2 Con if it picks fighter, but not if it picks, say, druid. But an elf fighter doesn't get any bonus to Con.

Maybe keep the proficiency anyway? I dunno. Just spitballing...

[Pex]

No Darkvision would be the most dramatic impact, methinks. For a party that likes to sneak, at least.


It's not like humans don't already use the Darkvision spell anyway in that scenario. Druid, Ranger, Sorcerer, Wizard, Shadow Monk... plenty of ways to get it. Or Goggles of Night if you like permanent items.

In practice sneaking through pitch darkness is a pretty rare scenario anyway, IME, and I'm not sure exactly why because it's super-fun when a real stealth-on-stealth battle occurs.

Darkvision is overrated. It is a useful thing to have, but some people get paranoid about having to carry a light source. It could be a DM thing, and I don't mean my stereotypical meany DM talk. There could be a campaign with many events happening in dark places and carrying a light source means continuous surprise attacks by enemies who know you are coming before you're there. If this is a major factor of the campaign then darkvision is very important. However, this isn't universally true. In other campaigns there aren't a series of continuous adventures in absolute darkness. Even in the Underdark there will be light sources, if dim, so that the denizens can see distances beyond their darkvision range or even just to notice color. When exploring dungeons or caves with a light source you may lose the element of surprise, but you aren't always surprised yourself. You can still have your own high Perception to know something is there.

[Unoriginal]

Stat bonuses are invisible. You apply them once and forget about them. Unique racial abilities matter. Something like Relentless Endurance says "I'm tough" at level 1 as much as it does at level 20, and you'll notice it being used in ways that you won't notice a +2 Con.

Stats bonuses have an effect whenever you do something with that stat.

Imagine adventurers built using the stat array method. If a Goblin decided to dump their DEX, they would still end up with a 10. If they decided to max it out, they'd have 17. Which means that in any DEX-related situation, a lvl 1 Goblin adventurer will at worse have a +0 to the roll, and at best a +3 (+ proficiency if applicable). Being more likely to succeed at DEX-related situations than their counterparts is a way to establish that the Goblins are nimble, which coupled with traits such as Nimble Escape help establish the identity.


Again, it's not a *big* thing, and should never be a big thing, but it's still a thing.



D&D isn't emulating anything but D&D; it's become its own unique vision of fantasy over the years.

It was always its own unique vision of fantasy, no matter what inspirations it took.



And part of that vision has become "all choices should be viable."

There is a difference between "all the choices the game suggests are viable" and "all concepts you can build using the game are viable."

You can technically build a character who only fights by throwing milk bottles at the enemies. That doesn't make it very viable.



And regardless, Half-Orcs are better Barbarians than Gnomes, because their abilities generally synergize better (particularly in this case, since every one of the Half-Orc features is better on a Barbarian than almost anywhere else). Even with equal stats, a Gnome Barbarian will wind up looking different because their unique racial abilities will be different.

You can't have it both ways. Either stat boosts are significant, in which case you are effectively being punished for choosing to play a non-stereotype, or they're largely irrelevant, in which case they do a poor job of representing a unique aspect of the race.

Actually, you can, and you said so yourself.

A STR 20 CON 20 Forest Gnome Barbarian is great, but they're different from a Half-Orc Barbarian with equivalent stat, because of their racial abilities, but ALSO because they had to spend their ASIs differently to get to that point and because how their stats are.

Assuming the standard stat array, a Gnome Barbarian who dumps INT will still be smarter than the Half-Orc Barbarian who does the same. Which represents one of the aspect of the Gnomes.


Darkvision is overrated. It is a useful thing to have, but some people get paranoid about having to carry a light source.

Amen to that.

I think people just forget, never read or ignore that Darkvision in total darkness means you see as if in dim light conditions, with the associated penalties, and think that Darkvision means you can see perfectly in the dark all the time.


What would you say the thematic identity of the human race is?


As the books say: D&D humans are adaptable.

[rlc]

To a point, sure. But also much harder to balance. I think they work well together.

I'm just saying some races SHOULD be better for some classes. That's part of the fantasy themes of the system. There aren't supposed to be gnome barbarians because those don't fit the fantasy history the system is trying to emulate. Sure you can do it, but in no way should they be as good as orc barbarians.

And, to add to that, if every swift race gets the same swift bonuses, they end up being just as compelling as +2 Dex.

[Morty]

Racial attribute bonuses are just a part of the largely meaningless numbers game that attributes are in general. I'd definitely be in favour of just dropping them and possibly adding some more unique racial features to actually make races feel different.

[Rebonack]

As the books say: D&D humans are adaptable.

Are they, though? Does a +1 to every ability score communicate that well, either thematically or mechanically?

I would argue the Half-Elf is more adaptable with +1 to two ability scores of their choice paired with proficiency in two skills of their choice, all the other racial features disregarded.

[EggKookoo]

Are they, though? Does a +1 to every ability score communicate that well, either thematically or mechanically?

Sure. Generalists tend to be more adaptable than specialists, and +1 to everything is about as generalist as you can get. Not discounting half-elf adaptability but thematically they would get that from their human side.

[Rebonack]

Sure. Generalists tend to be more adaptable than specialists, and +1 to everything is about as generalist as you can get. Not discounting half-elf adaptability but thematically they would get that from their human side.

But they don't get a plus one to everything (that would actually be pretty amazing). They get +1 to all ability scores. This is only relevant if they happen to have an odd ability score to begin with. Best case scenario you're doing point buy and have a starting stat spread of 15 13 13 11 11 10, which becomes 16 14 14 12 12 11 compared to the common 16 14 14 12 10 8 other races will end up with. I'm not sure if 'Plus three and plus two to your dump stats' is a particularly valuable or compelling racial feature.

[Unoriginal]

But they don't get a plus one to everything (that would actually be pretty amazing). They get +1 to all ability scores. This is only relevant if they happen to have an odd ability score to begin with. Best case scenario you're doing point buy and have a starting stat spread of 15 13 13 11 11 10, which becomes 16 14 14 12 12 11 compared to the common 16 14 14 12 10 8 other races will end up with.

And what does it change about them being adaptable?

If you do point buy, you have to pay less for all your stats.

[jh12]

I would argue the Half-Elf is more adaptable with +1 to two ability scores of their choice paired with proficiency in two skills of their choice, all the other racial features disregarded.

Is it really surprising that a Half-Human is also adaptable?

And Humans can also get +1 to two ability scores of their choice, proficiency in one skill of their choice, and a feat of their choice. A feat of your choice seems more adaptable than proficiency in a second skill of your choice.

[SkipSandwich]

I for one dont think this is a crazy idea at all. Id much rather see less passive traits and more active abilities. Simply being a dwarf is often boring, actively dwarfing your way through an adventure seldom is.

One of the reasons I love the Lizardfolk race so much is the way thier most prominant racial features (Natural Weapons, Hungry Jaws and Cunning Artisan) are things you actively USE to solve problems instead of passive ribbons where you often have no choice as to how often they come into play.

[EggKookoo]

I for one dont think this is a crazy idea at all. Id much rather see less passive traits and more active abilities. Simply being a dwarf is often boring, actively dwarfing your way through an adventure seldom is.

So how about this? Instead of the racial ability bonus, instead you get a feature where if you make a check or saving throw with one of your racial abilities and it fails, you can opt to roll again. You can do this a number of times per (short? long?) rest equal to the amount of RAW bonus. So, twice if you had a +2 and once if you had a +1.

[Son of A Lich!]

I for one dont think this is a crazy idea at all. Id much rather see less passive traits and more active abilities. Simply being a dwarf is often boring, actively dwarfing your way through an adventure seldom is.

One of the reasons I love the Lizardfolk race so much is the way thier most prominant racial features (Natural Weapons, Hungry Jaws and Cunning Artisan) are things you actively USE to solve problems instead of passive ribbons where you often have no choice as to how often they come into play.

I think this is the most elegant and succinct criticism of the racial bonuses I've read on the boards.

I agree with this.

[SkipSandwich]

So how about this? Instead of the racial ability bonus, instead you get a feature where if you make a check or saving throw with one of your racial abilities and it fails, you can opt to roll again. You can do this a number of times per (short? long?) rest equal to the amount of RAW bonus. So, twice if you had a +2 and once if you had a +1.

I had in mind more abilities that actively influence your decision-making process. Features you will go out of your way to take advantage of, making your own opportunities to use it instead of being forced to wait on circumstances.

Elven Precision: When performing a Ranged or Melee weapon attack using Dexterity, if you have Advantage on the Attack roll and both rolls would have hit, roll one additional damage die for your weapon.

Tree-Felling Strike (Dwarf): When you successfully Shove a creature of your size or larger, you may choose to push it in such a way as to cause injury, dealing Bludgeoning damage equvilant to an Unarmed Strike (normally 1 + your str mod).

Flexible Talent(human): Prior to making an attack roll or ability check you may roll an extra 1d4 and add it to the check result. You may use this ability twice and then you may not use it again until undergoing a Short Rest.

[EggKookoo]

I had in mind more abilities that actively influence your decision-making process. Features you will go out of your way to take advantage of, making your own opportunities to use it instead of being forced to wait on circumstances.

Elven Precision: When performing a Ranged or Melee weapon attack using Dexterity, if you have Advantage on the Attack roll and both rolls would have hit, roll one additional damage die for your weapon.

Tree-Felling Strike (Dwarf): When you successfully Shove a creature of your size or larger, you may choose to push it in such a way as to cause injury, dealing Bludgeoning damage equvilant to an Unarmed Strike (normally 1 + your str mod).

Flexible Talent(human): Prior to making an attack roll or ability check you may roll an extra 1d4 and add it to the check result. You may use this ability twice and then you may not use it again until undergoing a Short Rest.

These are cool, but with the exception of the human one I don't see much decision making. I mean, wouldn't you just always opt to take advantage of them? Or was it your intention that the elf and dwarf features also have a per-rest resource limit?

Edit: Oh, I guess the dwarf one requires you to decide it's a good time to shove, as opposed to using a weapon, so I guess that's pretty cool. I like these kinds of features -- very 5e.

[NaughtyTiger]

I liked how shadowrun handled it. Not only do elves get a dex bonus the the start, they also get a higher max dex than anyone.
Orcs and trolls start stronger and have a higher strength than anyone else...
Elves should get 22 max dex, orcs get a 24 max str, but 18 max int...

[sithlordnergal]

I really like that idea, it allows unexpected and unique builds, which I something I adore. It also allows more flexibility. You can just replace humans with Variant Humans, and leave the rest of the races alone since they have their own unique stuff.

Cause I'll be honest, sometimes the ability score boosts really do infuriate me cause it makes a build I really want to play unviable until really late game. Case in point, I played a Half Orc Cleric in Out of the Abyss. He was a fun character, fun personality, and I had a great time RPing him. But whenever it came to rolling anything wisdom, or casting any spells, he was absolute trash because he had no choice but to start with a 14 wisdom.

Once we reached level 6, he was essentially unplayable. It didn't matter if I cast a spell, or used Spiritual Weapon. My Wisdom was only a 16 at that point, and as a result my Spell DC and Spell Attack were too low. I couldn't hit things, and the DM was able to easily make saving throws. And its not like my DM was cheating or anything. The wizard did just fine cause he had an 18 int. It got bad enough that I eventually trashed the character and made a half elf with a better wisdom.

[Unoriginal]

I really like that idea, it allows unexpected and unique builds, which I something I adore. It also allows more flexibility. You can just replace humans with Variant Humans, and leave the rest of the races alone since they have their own unique stuff.

Cause I'll be honest, sometimes the ability score boosts really do infuriate me cause it makes a build I really want to play unviable until really late game. Case in point, I played a Half Orc Cleric in Out of the Abyss. He was a fun character, fun personality, and I had a great time RPing him. But whenever it came to rolling anything wisdom, or casting any spells, he was absolute trash because he had no choice but to start with a 14 wisdom.

Once we reached level 6, he was essentially unplayable. It didn't matter if I cast a spell, or used Spiritual Weapon. My Wisdom was only a 16 at that point, and as a result my Spell DC and Spell Attack were too low. I couldn't hit things, and the DM was able to easily make saving throws. And its not like my DM was cheating or anything. The wizard did just fine cause he had an 18 int. It got bad enough that I eventually trashed the character and made a half elf with a better wisdom.

How come that your character was unplayable with a 16 but the wizard was just fine with a 18? There is only one point of difference over all.

You would have had +6 to hit/DC 14 vs the Wizard's +7 to hit/DC 15. Is that the difference between unplayable and just fine?

[KyleG]

I liked how shadowrun handled it. Not only do elves get a dex bonus the the start, they also get a higher max dex than anyone.
Orcs and trolls start stronger and have a higher strength than anyone else...
Elves should get 22 max dex, orcs get a 24 max str, but 18 max int...

Are there any rules that allow this in 5e?

I like the idea of saying that certain races cant start below a certain point or above a certain point for some abilities and then racial figures are applied and only then do you apply a dice roll number to each ability.

Then again i still like the early post of having racial feats instead of racial ability score changes. As long as there were several racial abilities to choose from for each race you would still have diverse characters.

[Sception]

So... stuff like Relentless Endurance and Powerful Build don't do a better job of representing a strong and tough race than a bonus to Str and Con? Something like Nimble Escape or Fleet of Foot doesn't do a better job of representing a fast and agile race than a Dex bonus? Stat bonuses which are, at the same time, unimportant because a one-point difference in your modifier isn't going to noticeably affect anything and will soon be wiped out by ASIs?

Not really. Certainly not more elegantly. At least, not in standard array or point buy games where +1 in your primary stat will affect so many elements of how your character performs their class functions for at least the first 11 levels, and even after that puts you a whole asi ahead, which especially matters for mad builds or weapon using builds with key feats.

Yeah, +1 to the majority of your key rolls is a bit plain, but it's also effectiveme (unlike ribbons like powerful build), an simple (unlike abilities like relentless endurance that can sometimes be distractingly gamey or bothersome to track resource use of).

The strength score is the most fundamental baseline mechanic in the game for representing a character's strength. Likewise dex score for agility, etc. Trying to come up with a bunch of other redundant mechanics to represent those same concepts in more complicated and less broadly applicable ways is... well, i mean i dont think doing so is always a bad idea or can never work, but sometimes simple is better.

[ProsecutorGodot]

SNIP
I agree that mechanically a +Modifier is more likely to impact your character but I disagree with the idea that racial features can't also work well (and in a lot of cases, simply) to show a races strenghts.

Powerful Build, being as straightforward and admittedly boring as it is, is incredibly effective at this.

Just as an example, lets take a few choice examples (this is a bit cherry picked, but only to emphasise my point). We have 3 characters, each at 10 Str.
-Kobold: This guys one of the sturdiest Kobolds to come out of this cave in decades. Despite being well above average for a Kobold, his size is what limits him from making spectacular use of this natural talent. He's extraordinary by Kobold standards yet a scrawny human wizard with 8 str can carry nearly twice as much weight. Edit: Mistook tiny for small in carrying capacity, my general point still stands.
-Human: He's average. He works the fields, he can drag the plough. He hasn't gone out of his way to impress anybody but he cares enough to put in the effort. If his life depended on it he could pull off some fairly impressive feats.
-Goliath: Outcast from his tribe for being a worthless, puny runt, no onein the village sees him lifting anything heavier than his spell tome on a regular basis. Despite this, he's still asked, respectfully, to not enter the strongman competition at the festival because with absolutely zero training he's capable of matching or exceeding the feats of the other competitors who have spent the better part of their lives building these muscles.

In the case of Powerful Build (and creature size in general), it does MUCH more in conveying physical strength than a +mod could.

Edit: Also to springboard off the "active vs passive" racial feature discussions from earlier, abilities like that are inherently difficult to balance. You want them to be powerful when used and make you feel like "Yea I was really being a Dwarf there" but then it's rest gated as there are few other ways to limit powerful features, and you're now less of a Dwarf until your next rest.

This is why passives are good. They might be boring but you need something to always be there, having all (or even just a majority) actives puts you at risk of "running out of Dwarfiness" between rests.

[Pex]

How come that your character was unplayable with a 16 but the wizard was just fine with a 18? There is only one point of difference over all.

You would have had +6 to hit/DC 14 vs the Wizard's +7 to hit/DC 15. Is that the difference between unplayable and just fine?

Devil's Advocate

Bounded Accuracy. The difference matters against the BBEG of the combat. If you can target the BBEG's weakest save you're golden and the difference won't matter, but you don't always have the ability. Sometimes the BBEG's weakest save is still very good for the level of play. The monsters increase in ability scores and proficiency while the player only increases in proficiency. The one point difference soon becomes a two point difference between you and the bad guys. Add in magic resistance for the Special BBEGs, and the math goes against you more.

At low level play the difference doesn't matter as it remains +1. Personal opinion by 8th level you need parity. The one who starts with a higher ability score has more versatility options via a feat the other character had to spend on an ASI. It's possible to even out at 8th level, but the versatility advantage was felt those first 7 levels which took a long real world time to play through.

[sithlordnergal]

How come that your character was unplayable with a 16 but the wizard was just fine with a 18? There is only one point of difference over all.

You would have had +6 to hit/DC 14 vs the Wizard's +7 to hit/DC 15. Is that the difference between unplayable and just fine?

There are two reasons, the first is Bounded Accuracy. A +1 difference can be a huge thing. As someone who plays AL, a single +1 weapon and +1 shield make a huge difference. This is true for spell casters as well.

The other reason is due to the power shift at Tier 1 and Tier 2. Now, the average roll of a d20 is about 10.5, and in Tier 1 monsters tend to have about a +2 to a +3 ability mod bonus to their best ability, with a +0 to +1 or lower on their other scores, and they tend to have a low AC.

In Tier 2, it looks like the average jumps to between 4 and 5 for their best ability scores, and the other ability scores range from +0 to +3. Their AC also increases.

Due to this power increase, it becomes far easier for a DM to roll a DC 14 saving throw, and the increased AC makes it harder to hit an enemy. In Tier 1 having a 12 Spell DC could be mitigated simply by targeted an enemy's low AC. It isn't as easy to do that in Tier 2

[thereaper]

But the end result is still, the half-orc is only 1 behind. Any factors that hurt the 14 int character will impact the 16 int character just as much (with the possible exception of advantage and disadvantage).

[Pex]

But the end result is still, the half-orc is only 1 behind. Any factors that hurt the 14 int character will impact the 16 int character just as much (with the possible exception of advantage and disadvantage).

The 14 IN character is way off compared to the 18 IN character. The 16 IN character gets there first and has room for a feat. He can take the feat first and both reach 18 IN at the same time, but he's still up a feat. That versatility is a big deal. A 14 in your prime at low level isn't crippling, but it can't remain there if you're to stay relevant as the levels progress.

[thereaper]

Oh, of course it can't stay there. I wasn't suggesting that. It just means that you end up going without some feat or other.