Alternative Ability Variation - Too Much?

[Nefariis]

I've been DM'ing for over a decade now and I getting pretty tired of seeing the same race/class combinations.

Every class guide has one or two blue races that you must play or your completely sub-optimized.

What I was thinking about doing for my next campaign is to allow players to put their race stat bumps into any ability they want.

For Example - If a race is +2/+1, +1/+1, or +2/+1/+1, they can now put those stat bumps into any ability instead of being restricted to the abilities in the book.

I think this could lead to some interesting character combinations as well as some fascinating backstories.

And truthfully, I never really understood the ability restrictions in DnD. In a complete fantasy world that's dictated by probability, it would seem to me that there should be at least one -


Sickly half-orc with glasses, who enjoys reading about nature and history.
A Gnome who takes leg day a little too seriously, is known for injecting strength potions, and occasionally rages when he's slightly inconvenienced.
A Half-elf who fell down a flight of stairs, only then to be kicked in the face by a horse at the bottom.
A jovial, overweight elf with a thyroid disorder that is the life of every party who can literally persuade you to do anything.


I can see how some race/class combinations could be abused - but would they be that broken?

I guess I have it in my head that this game would be slightly more interesting if guide books had six or seven blue races instead of just one or two.

I believe this might lend to people with varying play styles as there would be more playable/optimized combinations as well as reward creative PC's with awesome and unique backstories.

What do you guys think?

[Grimmnist]

This is probably a bit too heavy handed an approach for my taste, but I think your concern is very valid. With your proposed rule change, races like Half-Elf and Mountain Dwarf which receive 4 total ASI could become an even lighter shade of blue causing many of the other races to be viable but certainly not optimal which is similar to the current problem.

In my games I let all races that are half Human (Tiefling, Aasimar, Half-Orc etc) apply their +1 where they choose while the +2 remains standard. This allows for much more variety while still maintaining a core racial identity lore wise.

Alternatively character variety can be achieved by rolling for stats and race, but perhaps that is too much randomization for your taste.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's a problem with guides and guide-followers, not the game.

Let's consider the games I'm DMing right now:

Game 1:
Goblin Bard
Goliath Paladin
Water Genasi Tempest Cleric
High Elf Rogue

Game 2:
Fallen Aasimar Rogue
Dragonborn barbarian
Human (not variant) Paladin
Warforged* Fighter
Wood elf ranger

Of those, only the ranger is "the right race". Yet they're all having fun. The differences between an "optimized" race and an "unoptimized" (but not "anti-optimized", like a kobold paladin) race are minimal, as long as the DM is not pushing everything to the max where it's a game of maximal optimization or death. And if they are...that's the DM's problem. Requiring maximal optimization homogenizes the game, because it throws out most of the possibilities as useless (2nd best is still a loss). So don't do that.

* really a homebrew variant for my setting, but very similar.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I removed racial modifiers and let every get +2 to one stat and +1 to another. I figure the fact that everyone gets exactly the stats they want is plenty to compensate races with more stat bumps. And more importantly, the increase in character variety is more than worth any minor balance issues around the edges.

(I also don't use the standard human).

[JeenLeen]

First off, I think your idea is good and would lend to better variety and fun, as you are hoping. I guess it might let someone make a more-overpowered character, but an extra +1 isn't (usually) that big of a deal. For me, it'd probably just mean I'd be more likely to try out a paladin, as most of the races that favor that stat-wise don't have good racial abilities (in my opinion.)


I've been DM'ing for over a decade now and I getting pretty tired of seeing the same race/class combinations.

Every class guide has one or two blue races that you must play or your completely sub-optimized.


Those guides are built to help folk optimize and thus, usually correctly, highlight the races that give the best mechanical benefit. I think it is legitimate to be annoyed at seeing the same combinations, but it's not really the fault of a guide per se but rather some folks' attitudes about optimization. (And I say that as someone who generally wants a fairly optimized build.)



And truthfully, I never really understood the ability restrictions in DnD. In a complete fantasy world that's dictated by probability, it would seem to me that there should be at least one -


Sickly half-orc with glasses, who enjoys reading about nature and history.
A Gnome who takes leg day a little too seriously, is known for injecting strength potions, and occasionally rages when he's slightly inconvenienced.
A Half-elf who fell down a flight of stairs, only then to be kicked in the face by a horse at the bottom.
A jovial, overweight elf with a thyroid disorder that is the life of every party who can literally persuade you to do anything.



Here's where I disagree with you in theory and probability. Note that I still think your idea is good.

In general, most orcs aren't sickly or overly intellectual. Most gnomes aren't that strong or focused on exercise. And so on. Thus, by probability, it's unlikely to see those. You should at times, yes, but they should be rare. Probability supports that, as outliers exist.

But that doesn't mean that, overall, orcs don't have a tendency towards strength. Hence their +2. But, yeah, you'll find some sickly orcs (low base Str) and some strong gnomes (high base Str). There's nothing contradictory about that.

For NPCs to really reflect probability, I'd recommend not expecting NPCs to follow point-buy (which lends to at least decent folk stat-wise) but rather a randomizer of 3d6. So you'd have some folk with baseline of all 18 and some with baseline 3, before applying racial mods. They'd be rare (1/256 = chance of an 18 and is the same as chance of a 3, so 1/(256^6) for the chance of all 18s or all 3s), but exist. But that doesn't mean you'd expect to see them as PCs.

EDIT: I realize and admit I'm probably being a bit to pedantic and taking your words too literally. I get your point, and I think those could be really fun PC ideas. And I think it's worth noting that standard 5e does allow you to make a decent half-orc wizard. They'd be decent strong (8 base strength if you make it a dump stat + 2 racial mod), but still weaker than most orcs. Sure, not as smart as the smartest level 1 elf, but still smart if you put points into Int.

[Stone-Ears]

I like your idea and it should allow for some really fun combinations like a fricking Orc Wizard. Imagine an uruk-hai from LOTR as a Wizard, that'd be pretty dang cool and I'd go for that and I might anyways, despite the usual restrictions.

If I had been dm'ing half as long as you have with half as many people, I'd have already tired of the stereotypical class combinations, thus why DM'ing on the regular is really not going to be for me.

[firelistener]

You can still max out stats pretty easily without the +1 or +2. It seems more like a player problem than a system problem.

[Vogie]

You could take a look at how Ability Scores are done in Pathfinder 2 - You build it in 4 stages, that are spread in an interesting direction. There's a thread in the DnDNext subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/cw2d89/building_ability_scores_from_the_ground_up/)where someone translated it into 5e if you're interested.

[samcifer]

You can still max out stats pretty easily without the +1 or +2. It seems more like a player problem than a system problem.

$e did variant stats near the end of it's run. Kind of bummed out I never got to play a warforged wizard with +2 INT.

[Bjarkmundur]

From my houserule document:


Ability Scores Credit: DungeonCraft
To prioritize the narrative creation of your character, I use a more thematic approach to determining ability scores. This removes much of the math previously required, without changing the results. This allows more emphasis to be put on creating the character itself. Too many times do I notice players start by choosing their ability scores, and subsequently get lost in an optimization mindset for the remainder of the character creation process.
When using these rules you don't need to worry about racial ability score bonuses, they have already been included.
Use the following steps to determine your character’s starting ability score modifiers.


You have a +3 modifier to your Primary ability modifier.
Arrange the rest of your modifiers between -1 and +2.
The maximum total sum of your ability modifiers is +7.

[Vessyra]

The nice things about 5e is that while optimising and power gaming is still possible, it's lessened compared to other editions, meaning that an optimised build doesn't completely overshadow a weak build; there's a clear power difference between optimised and underpowered, yes, but still small enough that they can both contribute to fights. As such, choosing the "wrong" race for your build won't put you that far behind. (unless, of course, you play an orc wizard. That would be fun, but I can't argue that that wouldn't be significantly underpowered)

I think that a good fix would be to let people choose to allocate the location of the +1 ability score stat, so that they can be certain that their class and subclass won't put them too far behind the power curve. (Not sure what to do about mountain dwarf, though. One of the main reasons for the subclass being balanced is that its two boons--armour proficiency and +2 ability increase--don't mesh with each other)
Still wouldn't be too overpowered to let them choose their own +2 and +1 ability modifiers, save in the case of dwarf subclasses, so I suppose that if your table really likes optimised builds then your method would be the way to go. It really does depend on the players; I'm fine playing the dark elf cleric with high charisma, but if my friend is playing a rogue you can bet that his race will have +2 dex.

[Trickery]

There's nothing wrong with your solution aside from races having different amounts of bonuses, which is already a problem.

If you really want to switch things up, take out racial stat bonuses entirely, give everyone +1/+2, take out variant human, and give everyone a free feat at level 1. While you're at it, remove race and size restrictions on feats, archetypes, and weapons. Do that and players will pick the races they actually want to play. A Goliath wizard hanging out with a greataxe wielding halfling barbarian is pure fun.

[Nefariis]

If you really want to switch things up, take out racial stat bonuses entirely, give everyone +1/+2, take out variant human, and give everyone a free feat at level 1. While you're at it, remove race and size restrictions on feats, archetypes, and weapons. Do that and players will pick the races they actually want to play. A Goliath wizard hanging out with a greataxe wielding halfling barbarian is pure fun.

I could kind of see this backfiring if everyone took Lucky or all the casters took Warcaster.

Not that it would break the game - but I could see 5 lucky PC's getting pretty annoying.

I do like removing race and size requirements for feats and archetypes though if there is a good back story behind it (and it doesn't seem too munchkiney) - that would definitely add to a lot of variety.




You have a +3 modifier to your Primary ability modifier.
Arrange the rest of your modifiers between -1 and +2.
The maximum total sum of your ability modifiers is +7.



So +3, +2, +2, 0, 0, 0? That seems a little too good.



You could take a look at how Ability Scores are done in Pathfinder 2 - You build it in 4 stages, that are spread in an interesting direction. There's a thread in the DnDNext subreddit where someone translated it into 5e if you're interested.


I do like the variety - but I would probably nerf it a hair.




I removed racial modifiers and let every get +2 to one stat and +1 to another.


This seems like a pretty fair balance.


I think I will present it to the players and see what they come up with.

Maybe I am giving them more credit than they deserve and they are just going to come back with the exact same race/class combinations as before and this just turns into another exercise in futility with dnd : P

[Bjarkmundur]

So +3, +2, +2, 0, 0, 0? That seems a little too good.

Well it's the same as the pregenerated characters (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/character_sheets) (some even have dual primary or a total sum of +8).

You can always tone it down sum 6, or include one mandatory -1. It's a very clean solution to ability scores.

[Grimmnist]

@ Bjarkmundur

I think yours is an elegant solution, I wouldn't use it for every game I run but it would probably work great for a quick game with less experienced players.

[Bjarkmundur]

:) <3 ......

[Nefariis]

Ohh ohhh ohhh - I completely misread/misunderstood

I thought instead of giving +2/+1 to abilities you were giving +3/+2/+2 so a character could start with 18, 17, 17 lol

Yeah this solution seems well balanced as well

[Floogal]

If you want to give more flexibility while still preserving the races' tendencies, how about:

"You can turn your race's core +2 into a +1 with a floating +1 to something not boosted."

e.g. Half-orc could be +1 Str, +1 Con, +1 something else, or the traditional +2 Str, +1 Con

e.g. halfling could be +1 dex, +1 from subrace, +1 to a third stat

e.g. Dwarf could be +1 Con, +x from subrace, +1 to a third stat

e.g. half-elf could be +1 Cha, +1 to three other stats

Not sure about races like Tritons with no +2, maybe they can change one stat? Humans get no change, free feat is still great.

[ad_hoc]

I've been DM'ing for over a decade now and I getting pretty tired of seeing the same race/class combinations.

Every class guide has one or two blue races that you must play or your completely sub-optimized.

Just because a guide says it is so doesn't mean it is.

Most options in 5e are just fine.

What is good is going to be highly dependent on the type/style of game being run and the party competition.

With these sort of house rules there is a danger of turning the game into a mush of numbers rather than representing genre/narrative.

In other words, if you make everything interchangeable then nothing means anything.

[Sahe]

You found an inherent problem in 5e Design and I guess Lore too in how the Races are a weird mix of not only biological differences between SPECIES, but also includes Culture and Upbringing to a part. Examples for that are Weapon Trainings and Armor Trainings and Languages for example.

Ideally Character creation would have players chose a Species, a Culture, a Background and a Class.

I do like your approach, especially in Point Buy/Array games. In games where you roll you can easier get away with a suboptimal class. General Wisdom is that a 14 in a core stat is fine, but speaking from experience, it can be quite frustrating.

[Trickery]

You found an inherent problem in 5e Design and I guess Lore too in how the Races are a weird mix of not only biological differences between SPECIES, but also includes Culture and Upbringing to a part. Examples for that are Weapon Trainings and Armor Trainings and Languages for example.

Ideally Character creation would have players chose a Species, a Culture, a Background and a Class.

I do like your approach, especially in Point Buy/Array games. In games where you roll you can easier get away with a suboptimal class. General Wisdom is that a 14 in a core stat is fine, but speaking from experience, it can be quite frustrating.

Regardless of the exact solution, you don't want certain races to be demonstrably bad picks for certain classes. Ex: you don't want halflings to make just-plain-bad barbarians. Whatever is gained in lore does not add up to what is lost in variety.

Ideally, the different races would be able to take different approaches to a given concept. But that's too much to ask of 5e. Instead, allowing players to reallocate their stat bonuses is a much easier solution that addresses the issue.

[ad_hoc]

You found an inherent problem in 5e Design and I guess Lore too in how the Races are a weird mix of not only biological differences between SPECIES, but also includes Culture and Upbringing to a part. Examples for that are Weapon Trainings and Armor Trainings and Languages for example.

Ideally Character creation would have players chose a Species, a Culture, a Background and a Class.

I do like your approach, especially in Point Buy/Array games. In games where you roll you can easier get away with a suboptimal class. General Wisdom is that a 14 in a core stat is fine, but speaking from experience, it can be quite frustrating.

It's not a problem, it is intentional.

5e isn't designed to create a simulation.

It is designed theme/narrative first.

Races are a package of theme by design.

[Trickery]

It's not a problem, it is intentional.

5e isn't designed to create a simulation.

It is designed theme/narrative first.

Races are a package of theme by design.

I see claims like this all the time, but never an official source. Suffice it to say that 5e is many things, and many people have different opinions about what it is and should be.

[ad_hoc]

I see claims like this all the time, but never an official source. Suffice it to say that 5e is many things, and many people have different opinions about what it is and should be.

Both Crawford and Mearls have explained it at length.

Just because someone wants it to be one way doesn't mean it was designed poorly because it isn't that way.

It's one thing to say that you don't like that it isn't the way you want it to be. And another to say that the designers failed.

[Fable Wright]

What I did at my table was:

1. Point buy.
2. After you've put your points in everything and applied your racial modifiers, set your lowest stat to a 16 instead of an 8.
3. Profit.

Turns out, it's less powerful than rolling; lets players make suboptimal concepts work; and still maintains the concept of some races having an advantage in their dump stats.

The angry gnome is pretty clever, but he's also (nearly) as strong as the half-orc. (17 vs 16 doesn't make a mechanical difference.)

Also helps support MAD character concepts and giving you odd & fun characters, like the person who brought a fully-optimized gnome wizard to the table and got their strength suddenly boosted to 16. Happy accidents like that just make the game more interesting.

[Nefariis]

Both Crawford and Mearls have explained it at length.

Just because someone wants it to be one way doesn't mean it was designed poorly because it isn't that way.

It's one thing to say that you don't like that it isn't the way you want it to be. And another to say that the designers failed.

I don't think anyone is implying that 5e was designed poorly.

I think its pretty safe to say that this is the most balanced game that any player or dm could ever possibly ask for - also, I think it's fairly obvious why set racial bonuses exist in the first place.

But.... it would be cool if Mearls/Crawford came out with a variant set of rules for racial abilities/archetypes to inject some new life into the game (Maybe a new UA edition?!?).

If race/class combos could be interchanged more freely, the game would be a lot more interesting for not only the players and dms, but even for your day-to-day, Giantip theory-crafters as well : )

[Trickery]

I don't think anyone is implying that 5e was designed poorly.

I think its pretty safe to say that this is the most balanced game that any player or dm could ever possibly ask for

*cough, Dungeon World, cough*

[ad_hoc]

I don't think anyone is implying that 5e was designed poorly.



You found an inherent problem in 5e Design

This is what I was replying to.

It's not a problem, it's a feature.




If race/class combos could be interchanged more freely, the game would be a lot more interesting for not only the players and dms, but even for your day-to-day, Giantip theory-crafters as well : )

I disagree. I think the game would become more of a 'mush of theme' to paraphrase Crawford.

It's again a feature of the rules that races are a certain way and classes are a certain way.

I realize some here would prefer if the game were designed more like GURPS with everything done by point buy rather than class.

I wouldn't like that game.

It isn't always better to have more options. It waters down the theme. More options should only be there if there is a strong narrative reason for them.

Narrative first design is what I like about 5e.

[Sahe]

Regardless of the exact solution, you don't want certain races to be demonstrably bad picks for certain classes. Ex: you don't want halflings to make just-plain-bad barbarians. Whatever is gained in lore does not add up to what is lost in variety.

Ideally, the different races would be able to take different approaches to a given concept. But that's too much to ask of 5e. Instead, allowing players to reallocate their stat bonuses is a much easier solution that addresses the issue.

I'd decouple Stat Bonuses from Species completely. Your species gives you features like Infernal Legacy and Darkvision.

Your Culture is for Languages and possibly certain proficiencies (Weapon and Armor mostly or do all Dwarves have a Warhammer-gene?)

Background is largely as it is now, possibly giving you also some or all of the Stat Bonuses Races give you now. Alternatively those Stat Bonuses are carted off to your Class.

The first two points would possibly need a bit more work and retooling. The latter there was recently an article on DnD Beyond on how to go about it: https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/563-reimagining-racial-ability-scores

And requires less work. Just allowing to allocate their Stats where ever is also a workaround.


It's not a problem, it is intentional.

5e isn't designed to create a simulation.

It is designed theme/narrative first.

Races are a package of theme by design.

That may be, but I'd call a design that limits player creativity by so strongly encouraging certain Race/Class combinations a problem. On top of that, even with the removal of almost all negative Ability Modifiers to Races, kinda reeks a little bit of racism, especially with some of the racial coding treatment that the races get on top of that.

[Coffee_Dragon]

That may be, but I'd call a design that limits player creativity by so strongly encouraging certain Race/Class combinations a problem.

The issue seems to be that some people refuse to play race/class combinations the DM wants them to entertain as long as they know there's a combination that would make them slightly more mechanically effective relative to the other PCs. That's not the system limiting player creativity. They're refusing to apply it because marginal power gains trump all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The issue seems to be that some people refuse to play race/class combinations the DM wants them to entertain as long as they know there's a combination that would make them slightly more mechanically effective relative to the other PCs. That's not the system limiting player creativity. They're refusing to apply it because marginal power gains trump all.

Exactly. It's a player problem, not a game problem.

Exacerbated by DMs pushing the difficulty envelope so that marginal power gains are required for survival. If you back off from that edge, you open up a huge range of options.

It's the curse of "competitive" play--as long as there are mechanical differences, there will be a "best" solution and anything else is forgotten. You either play the meta choice or you lose. That leads to MMO-style homogenization of races--they're all identical except for the character sprite. The Lalafell (tiny people) from FFXIV can tank the big monster just as well as the Roegadyn (huge people) from the same game. Because otherwise there's no point in taking one when the other is just better. Doing so in a TTRPG, or importing that mentality of mechanics-primacy, is what harms the game IMO because it destroys the fictional verisimilitude and washes out the differences. You end up with "humans in funny hats", instead of believable different races. As a worldbuilder, I'd just give up at that point and make everyone human.

On the other side, I've moved (at least theoretically) toward more subraces representing cultures. Each race has their base (which is the genetic part) and then a bunch of cultural subraces. As far as ability scores, they get more from the subrace than they did, and some of the features get moved to sub-races. These humans are different than those humans culturally, so people who grew up there have different traits.

For example, humans. In this redesign, there is no variant/regular humans. There are just humans with subraces specific to the setting. The stats below aren't fully playtested--I may drop the "any feat" to "any half-feat".

Base humans get +1 to any ability score of their choice and their choice of feat.
Subraces include:

Night's Children (tall, dark-haired, pale skin, blessed by Night), who get
* darkvision
* +1 STR

Scale-kin (have some small amounts of elf + yuan-ti breeding), who get
* +1 DEX
* advantage vs being poisoned (but not resistance to poison damage)

Wall-builders (very devout, crafting and tool focus), who get
* +1 WIS
* Religion proficiency
* a tool proficiency of their choice.

[Sahe]

Exactly. It's a player problem, not a game problem.

Exacerbated by DMs pushing the difficulty envelope so that marginal power gains are required for survival. If you back off from that edge, you open up a huge range of options.

It's the curse of "competitive" play--as long as there are mechanical differences, there will be a "best" solution and anything else is forgotten. You either play the meta choice or you lose. That leads to MMO-style homogenization of races--they're all identical except for the character sprite. The Lalafell (tiny people) from FFXIV can tank the big monster just as well as the Roegadyn (huge people) from the same game. Because otherwise there's no point in taking one when the other is just better. Doing so in a TTRPG, or importing that mentality of mechanics-primacy, is what harms the game IMO because it destroys the fictional verisimilitude and washes out the differences. You end up with "humans in funny hats", instead of believable different races. As a worldbuilder, I'd just give up at that point and make everyone human.


The difference is that DnD Races are differentiated by more than just their ASI's where in MMO's especially it's usually just a cosmetic choice.

And yes you can get away with playing a character who starts with a +2 in their Primary instead of a +3 Mod, but it can feel really unsatisfying. Especially for your Ability/Spell Save DCs are concerned.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The difference is that DnD Races are differentiated by more than just their ASI's where in MMO's especially it's usually just a cosmetic choice.

And yes you can get away with playing a character who starts with a +2 in their Primary instead of a +3 Mod, but it can feel really unsatisfying. Especially for your Ability/Spell Save DCs are concerned.

The game math is totally fine with a +2 mod all through T1 and most/all of T2. I have people playing all sorts of things and as long as I'm not pushing the envelope they're fine.

Remember, CR = level is not the norm. The median CR of creatures is (very roughly) about 2/3 to 1/2 of the level once you figure for larger groups of monsters (like you should be using). And the dice are still very firmly in control, so that "feeling unsatisfying" is a purely player-side (ie mental) problem, not a game-side problem at all.

And min-maxers don't usually care about the "ribbon" features at all, unless they're something amazing. It's why dragonborn are universally panned, despite having one of the most fun (at least based on my players) abilities and why boring races like variant humans are lauded (mainly because you can pick up the juicy combat feats early).

[Nefariis]

It isn't always better to have more options. It waters down the theme. More options should only be there if there is a strong narrative reason for them.

I guess after 10+ years of DM'ing, I'm tired of saying - A human fighter, a halfling rouge, a half-elf sorcerer, and human paladin/cleric walk into a bar.

You can keep your "theme," it's no longer fun for me. As a side note, it should be noted, that even in my initial post I would require an interesting backstory/narrative for this type of change.



On top of that, even with the removal of almost all negative Ability Modifiers to Races, kinda reeks a little bit of racism

I actually agree with this - I get that it's a fantasy world, but a fantasy of mine is a little more diversity.



The issue seems to be that some people refuse to play race/class combinations the DM wants them to entertain as long as they know there's a combination that would make them slightly more mechanically effective relative to the other PCs. That's not the system limiting player creativity. They're refusing to apply it because marginal power gains trump all.

I think you are blaming the players too much - everyone wants to feel useful and no one wants to suck - whether it be in this game or in life.

Constantly missing with your Axe or Spell, always failing your persuasion checks in important moments, and constantly being crippled on save or suck checks is the antitheses of fun - and this is a game, and it is supposed to be a fun.

I think it's completely valid for any player to create a character with a good back story -AND- be as optimized as possible.

I refuse to blame any of my players for min-maxing when the game rewards awesomeness - it would be nice if you could be both creative and awesome - and to that extent, the current ability rules do limit creativity.


That leads to MMO-style homogenization of races--they're all identical except for the character sprite. The Lalafell (tiny people) from FFXIV can tank the big monster just as well as the Roegadyn (huge people) from the same game.

I think the big difference between MMO and dnd is that even with an ability change to the rules, you would still have racial traits like dark vision, stout, luck, 1/day spells, armor, weapons - which still leads to quite a bit of variety.

[JackPhoenix]

The proposed change doesn't solve the core problem you seem to have: some races will still be better for certain class than other, only it would be based on racial traits instead of ASI. If mountain dwarf can get bonus to Int, suddenly the blue (or whatever) race for a wizard would be dwarf instead of a high elf, because you get the same racial ability score bonus, and more useful trait (medium armor proficiency). Or everyone would just play yuan-ti, because spell resistance, darkvision, spellcasting and poison immunity is awesome combination, but +1 Int/+2 Cha is useless for many characters... but that's not a problem if you can put the +1 and +2 anywhere you want.

Besides, your complaint:

And truthfully, I never really understood the ability restrictions in DnD. In a complete fantasy world that's dictated by probability, it would seem to me that there should be at least one -


Sickly half-orc with glasses, who enjoys reading about nature and history.
A Gnome who takes leg day a little too seriously, is known for injecting strength potions, and occasionally rages when he's slightly inconvenienced.
A Half-elf who fell down a flight of stairs, only then to be kicked in the face by a horse at the bottom.
A jovial, overweight elf with a thyroid disorder that is the life of every party who can literally persuade you to do anything.


is misplaced. There are no restrictions in place... you CAN make sickly half-orc or whatever and ability score bonuses have nothing to do with enjoying reading. Gnome barbarian suffers more from being small and getting disadvantage when using heavy weapons than from ability score bonuses. Cha has nothing to do with looks. Nothing stops you from describing your elf as fat and giving him high Cha and (through various means) expertise in Persuasion.


I guess after 10+ years of DM'ing, I'm tired of saying - A human fighter, a halfling rouge, a half-elf sorcerer, and human paladin/cleric walk into a bar.

You can keep your "theme," it's no longer fun for me. As a side note, it should be noted, that even in my initial post I would require an interesting backstory/narrative for this type of change.

You may note that the human already has flexible ability score bonuses, but their main draw is propably the feat (if we're talking about variant human). Or maybe the player wants to play a human instead of some weird race and doesn't care about ability scores.

[Grimmnist]

..I would require an interesting backstory/narrative for this type of change.


As an optimizer I have and would build an interesting backstory around a single ability I want to optimize around, but usually these backstories are fairly shallow and I get bored of the character quickly. I should not be given the freedom to mix any race and class optimally because I would immediately attempt to break everything and would overall have less fun playing the game.

I agree with your point about how more viable builds could create interesting narratives, and that players should not be punished by having to choose between an interesting character or an optimized one but I also think the rules exist for a reason. I could see removing rules regarding ASI's worsening the optimization problem, as JackPheonix said Mountain Dwarf would become a sky blue god with Medium Armor proficiency on many classes. At the end of the day we all run our own tables and are able to use whatever rules we want to create the most fun experience, if removing racial ASI restrictions works for your games fantastic!

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

As an optimizer I have and would build an interesting backstory around a single ability I want to optimize around, but usually these backstories are fairly shallow and I get bored of the character quickly.

One thing that helped me was switching this around. Come up with the character first, then go all-in on the optimization. Optimize towards a narrative concept rather than a mechanical one. It keeps you from falling into the same old ruts, and it means that you can still stretch yourself mechanically without creating weird power imbalances at the table.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I think you are blaming the players too much - everyone wants to feel useful and no one wants to suck - whether it be in this game or in life.

It seemed to be more or less the premise of the thread, but sure, I can blame the DM instead. :smallwink:

Make clear to your players that stepping onto a marginally lower baseline and not taking only light blue races won't get them immediately killed or otherwise rendered irrelevant in the game world.

All power levels are relative to the challenges offered by the DM. Apply those to counterbalance that relative -1 modifier a not light blue race may end up with and that players supposedly find intolerable.

If in the end the players still know what they want to play and it's not a gnome barbarian - let them? Or trade seats and make the gnome barbarian yourself.

[ad_hoc]

I guess after 10+ years of DM'ing, I'm tired of saying - A human fighter, a halfling rouge, a half-elf sorcerer, and human paladin/cleric walk into a bar.

If there is no standard for identity then there can be no deviation from that standard.

A human fighter, a human rogue, a human sorcerer, and a human paladin wearing funny hats isn't particularly exciting either.

D&D is a game of tropes, deliberately so. The standard tropes should be incentivized so that they are broken less often. When they are broken then, that becomes noteworthy.

If the game didn't reinforce those tropes then we would end up with a fantasy mush. Just a jumbled bunch of fantasy trappings thrown together.

That doesn't foster creativity.

Look at improv. The creativity there is coming up with something while working within the confines of the rules that are set. You could argue that improv without rules would allow the actors total freedom for creativity. What you would end up with is the opposite. There is no challenge to being creative because there is nothing established to work within.

[JakOfAllTirades]

You can still max out stats pretty easily without the +1 or +2. It seems more like a player problem than a system problem.

I agree with this 100%. My next character is going to be a Horizon Walker Ranger, and I've decided he'll be a Fire Genasi because of background reasons. No bonus to DEX or WIS and I really don't care. I've got another character concept (waiting to find a good Planescape/Spelljammer game) for a Githyanki Great Old Ones BladeLock, which is far from optimal but again, he's got a great background. (No CHA bonus, and NO, I'm not making him a ****ing hexblade!)

It's a matter of priorities: if players put background ahead of optimization, they won't be so laser-focused on which race/class combinations are "best" and you'll see more variety. If optimization is all they care about, you'll see the same race/class combos over and over, with backgrounds tailored to fit them. I'd and wager the backgrounds are as repetitive as the races and classes.

[Grimmnist]

Look at improv. The creativity there is coming up with something while working within the confines of the rules that are set. You could argue that improv without rules would allow the actors total freedom for creativity. What you would end up with is the opposite. There is no challenge to being creative because there is nothing established to work within.

uhmagud, did you do improv??1??? I did improv!!/!

I think this is a pretty good point, to add onto it, even in really long-form improv, where you go into a scene with no rules and complete freedom, it is up to the performers to create rules. An actor performing improv must adhere to a set of rules so their fellow scene-mates and the audience can understand the motivations and actions of the character. This is a really tough mentality to balance* as a lot of early improv training is about removing restrictions from one's mind. Similar to D&D the core goal of improv is to perform within an imagined environment that the whole group perceives. Established rules are an easy way to enforce that everyone sees the same world and while one could tweak and remove rules it can easily make the game less immersive rather than more.

* I am garbage at it

[Nefariis]

If mountain dwarf can get bonus to Int, suddenly the blue (or whatever) race for a wizard would be dwarf instead of a high elf, because you get the same racial ability score bonus, and more useful trait (medium armor proficiency). Or everyone would just play yuan-ti, because spell resistance, darkvision, spellcasting and poison immunity is awesome combination, but +1 Int/+2 Cha is useless for many characters... but that's not a problem if you can put the +1 and +2 anywhere you want.

This is exactly why I'm excited! -- I get to see new stuff at the table, characters still get to be awesome, and no one gets penalized for being sub par - it's literally a win for everyone.



If the game didn't reinforce those tropes then we would end up with a fantasy mush. Just a jumbled bunch of fantasy trappings thrown together.

and


I think this is a pretty good point, to add onto it, even in really long-form improv, where you go into a scene with no rules and complete freedom, it is up to the performers to create rules. An actor performing improv must adhere to a set of rules so their fellow scene-mates and the audience can understand the motivations and actions of the character.

I think relating this to improv in this manner is completely missing the mark and is comparing apples to curtains.

I am not getting rid of all the rules - the sorcerer still has all the rules that dictate what a sorcerer is, all the race archetypes still have their racial abilities, spells and feats will be unchanged - I am literally just letting people do something like +2/+1 to their chosen abilities.

I assure you, I am not trying to desecrate, nor turn people's interpreted perception of the DnD fantasy world into "fantasy mush" - I am just looking for a little more variety on my end of the table.

I think if we were to make an improv comparison though, it would be more like telling someone that they can be any federal employee they want instead of telling them to specifically be a firefighter.


But.... We have digressed off topic however - and I apologize.

I went back and played around with the math on @Bjarkmundur idea of a +7 or +8, and it seems like a decent and balanced system.

I think I might have them create characters based on that and see how it goes - then the racial ability modifiers are completely moot.

[Grimmnist]

Sorry about getting off topic, I love endlessly arguing about how we play pretend with our friends :)


This is exactly why I'm excited! -- I get to see new stuff at the table, characters still get to be awesome, and no one gets penalized for being sub par - it's literally a win for everyone.


My only real concern about this part is still just the Mountain Dwarf caster problem. Yes it's new but now every caster has to compete with the 16 Con 16 AC (from medium armor) 16 casting stat Dwarf, creating a new inequity. Changing the rules for use long term (which may not be your goal, maybe you just want more varied short term) leads to a new meta and homogeneity.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Sorry about getting off topic, I love endlessly arguing about how we play pretend with our friends :)



My only real concern about this part is still just the Mountain Dwarf caster problem. Yes it's new but now every caster has to compete with the 16 Con 16 AC (from medium armor) 16 casting stat Dwarf, creating a new inequity. Changing the rules for use long term (which may not be your goal, maybe you just want more varied short term) leads to a new meta and homogeneity.

It does feel like there's always going to be a standard - I'd prefer to have a human, halfling, elf and dwarf as the standard than going back to the 3.X Krynn half-ogre, dark template warforged scout, venerable dragonwrought kobold and anthropomorphic bat party. It just makes the storytelling better, I think.

[ad_hoc]

I think relating this to improv in this manner is completely missing the mark and is comparing apples to curtains.

I am not getting rid of all the rules - the sorcerer still has all the rules that dictate what a sorcerer is, all the race archetypes still have their racial abilities, spells and feats will be unchanged - I am literally just letting people do something like +2/+1 to their chosen abilities.

I assure you, I am not trying to desecrate, nor turn people's interpreted perception of the DnD fantasy world into "fantasy mush" - I am just looking for a little more variety on my end of the table.

I think if we were to make an improv comparison though, it would be more like telling someone that they can be any federal employee they want instead of telling them to specifically be a firefighter.


It's just a word of caution, that's all.

It is the downside of these sorts of houserules.

You need to evaluate if it is worth it to you.

[JackPhoenix]

It does feel like there's always going to be a standard - I'd prefer to have a human, halfling, elf and dwarf as the standard than going back to the 3.X Krynn half-ogre, dark template warforged scout, venerable dragonwrought kobold and anthropomorphic bat party. It just makes the storytelling better, I think.

Agreed. I've yet to meet someone to convince me that you absolutely need more than 5 or so playable races, and that just human isn't sufficient.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Agreed. I've yet to meet someone to convince me that you absolutely need more than 5 or so playable races, and that just human isn't sufficient.

I agree and disagree.

Part of the draw of D&D (to me, and to a lot of my players) is the inherent kitchen-sink nature. You can truly be different (at least from what you are on earth[1]). So my setting was created with the intent that as many of the published player options could be available...as long as it makes sense. This has taken quite a bit of work, but I'm happy with how it's turned out. Not every option is currently playable, but I know where they all are. Most of them are not particularly widespread, and the origins of the races are very very different than the standard (as are their cultures). For example, there are currently approximately 200 kobolds. Period. And all of them are in (under, really) one little town in a backwater area. They were created about 10 years ago by a mad, dragon-obsessed druid with access to soul manipulation magitech, a captive dragon, and a supply of gnome clones.

So having lots and lots of races fills a need for me and my players.

But having a bunch of races that are just mechanical bundles, devoid of culture (or worse, with an artificial global monoculture), devoid of a place in the setting, each one just a vessel for optimization? That, to me, is repellent. While removing the racial stats doesn't devolve things to this level, the obsession with always having the "optimal" race will inevitably lead there. Because the only way to have "diversity" and "optimality" at the same time is to make everything exactly the same except different (in insignificant ways) shapes. And I don't like that at all. As long as you have the kind of meaningful differences that different cultures, lifestyles, and ways of life produce, you will inevitably create a "meta" option and the rest will vanish off the concept space.

[1] I have a tiny (well under 5', probably 90 lbs or less), shy 8th grade girl, who (according to one of her teachers) hasn't said 10 words in 3 years in class in one of my groups this year. She's playing a 6'+ dragonborn barbarian. That, to me, is the beauty of D&D. Being able to be something other than your own self. I've had kids come back after graduating and talk about how the only reason they got through their senior year was that they had D&D club and the opportunity to throw off the shackles of convention and peers and just be different. And that's something I treasure like nothing else. I would have sacrificed small animals (not really, but...) in high school for that kind of opportunity. To drop the mask and let my weirdness flow through a D&D character.