Why not move the stat bumps from races to classes?

[CTurbo]

For example,

Barbarian get +2 Str, +1 to anything else
Bard gets +2 Cha, +1 to anything else
Cleric gets +2 Wis, +1 to anything else
Druid gets +2 Wis, +1 to anything else
Fighter gets +2 to Dex OR Str, +1 to anything else
Rogue gets +2 Dex, +1 to anything else
Sorcerer gets +2 Cha, +1 to anything else
Warlock gets +2 Cha, +1 to anything else
Wizard gets +2 Int, +1 to anything else

Using this rule, you cannot put your floating +1 in the stat that you got the +2 in. Or it would maybe be interesting to allow that??? Opinions?

I'm using multiclass requirements as a guide here, but for the 3 classes that require 2 stats of 13 or more, I'm giving them two +2s but they get no choice.

Monk gets +2 to Dex and Wis
Ranger gets +2 to Dex and Wis
Paladin gets +2 to Str and Cha

They depend on ASIs more than the rest so they get a bit of a boost. It's no less fair that the Half-Elf getting +2, +1, +1 and the Mountain Dwarf getting +2, +2. The only negative thing I can think of here is not being able to have a Str Ranger or Dex Paladin easily.

[Amnestic]

One argument against it could be it limits potential archetypes/subclass design space in the future. One example is an oft-requested/discussed "Thug Rogue"* that's based around strength rather than dexterity. I don't know how far WotC want to explore that area - we usually don't see archetypes changing desired primary stats, just adding tertiary ones (eg. Eldritch Knight) - but it would prevent them from potentially exploring it in the future.

*"Pugilist Monk" likewise, but I've seen some talk about different warlock patrons keying off of different mental stats.

[TigerT20]

I'm tinkering with the idea of getting a +2 from a choice of two or three options for races (obv more choices if more subraces) and a +1 from a choice of two from class.

I believe some people in the thread discussing the change have suggested +1 for race, class and background (which would essentially be free-floating as backgrounds are customisable)

[Man_Over_Game]

One argument against it could be it limits potential archetypes/subclass design space in the future. One example is an oft-requested/discussed "Thug Rogue"* that's based around strength rather than dexterity. I don't know how far WotC want to explore that area - we usually don't see archetypes changing desired primary stats, just adding tertiary ones (eg. Eldritch Knight) - but it would prevent them from potentially exploring it in the future.

*"Pugilist Monk" likewise, but I've seen some talk about different warlock patrons keying off of different mental stats.

Not trying to plug, but I'd like to recommend my Prestige Options for you. It handles all of those concepts (Thug Rogue, Strength Monk, alternate casting stats for Warlocks) while including Option-specific leveling restrictions to put a leash on multiclassing - so it's allowed without allowing anything too OP. Justifications are provided for each Option, so that a DM can see the thought process behind it without just needing to trust a rando on the internet.
Link in the signature, if you're interested.




As for the topic itself, I think it's to involve stereotypes, giving individual races specific strengths and individuality. Elves are gifted thieves and casters, making them unique as such, but a Barbarian Elf is uniquely unique. If anyone can be anything, everyone will be more generic.

That's the cost of a class-based system. In order to feel unique, you have to have unique things that nobody else can do, which means closing those options off for everyone else.

For a real-game example, my players are frustrated that using the Search Action can't be done with a Bonus Action, yet my party's Rogue wants to level as an Inquisitive (who gains the ability to take the Search Action with a Bonus Action). So if I give my players what they want, I'd have to give the Inquisitive something else to compensate. You can't give everyone what they want, otherwise what they spent towards investment means nothing (You can quest for $500 or ask for $500, but only one of those leads to quests).

You create value in a player's decision when the reward would have been difficult/impossible without it.

[stoutstien]

it probably a better idea than having them tied to races. personally i like the idea of splinting up the stat bonuses up between races, backgrounds(specifically the feature so custom backgrounds are still valid), and classes.

[Nifft]

Why even have stat bumps at that point?

Just use a higher point-buy and add nothing to it.

[Aett_Thorn]

I know that this is being discussed in the larger thread on it as well, but I'd much rather have a +1 fixed from race, +1 fixed from subrace (two +1s for races without a subrace), +1 choice from class (so Fighter could get +1 to Str OR Dex), and +1 choice from Background (so Criminal could get a choice of Dex or Int, for instance). Create a restriction that you can't get more than +2 to a single stat, and you're good.

[MrStabby]

I dont like tying it to class. All of those wonderful strength rangers and monks that keep the game fresh will disappear. The martial cleric, already a tough choice to go into becomes worse still.

The flexability given by mixing and matching is quite valuable.

I also wouldn't mind moving it to background as well, and maybe even tying background to the stat requirements of multiclass. If I become a ranger after a background of being a wood cutter then I am probably pretty strong and likely to use my strength in my rangering for example.

[Tanarii]

The 13th age method seems like it might work. +2 to one of two ability scores limited by race, and +2 to one of two abilities limited by class. And they can't be the same ability score

Example:
Hill Dwarf +2 Con or +2 Wis
Wood Elf +2 Dex or +2 Wis
Ranger +2 Str or +2 Dex
Fighter +2 Str or +2 Con

So you could have:
Hill Dwarf Fighter with +2 Str/Con, Str/Wis, or Con/Wis, but not +4 Con.
Wood Elf Fighter with +2 Str/Dex, Str/Wis, Dex/Con, or Dex/Wis.
Hill Dwarf Ranger with +2 Str/Con, Str/Wis, Dex/Con or Dex/Wis.
Wood Elf Ranger with +2 Str/Wis, Str/Dex, or Dex/Wis, but not +4 Dex.

[BurgerBeast]

I think the rolls or stat arrays or point-buys represent individuality (with respect to the six ability measures): that is, you have to be born with some range of attributes. These are the attributes that place you on the curve of all members of your racial population.

The racial modifiers shift the scores to represent racial differences, so they should stay tied to race, in my opinion.

The ASIs represent training. In the case of adventurers this is the experience gained through adventuring.

That’s my two cents.

It’s probably worth adding that none of this has any bearing on one’s ability to be a unique or exceptional individual. The choices we make and the deeds we do within the confines of the circumstances in which we live make us individuals and determine our worth in life.

[MrStabby]

The 13th age method seems like it might work. +2 to one of two ability scores limited by race, and +2 to one of two abilities limited by class. And they can't be the same ability score

Example:
Hill Dwarf +2 Con or +2 Wis
Wood Elf +2 Dex or +2 Wis
Ranger +2 Str or +2 Dex
Fighter +2 Str or +2 Con

So you could have:
Hill Dwarf Fighter with +2 Str/Con, Str/Wis, or Con/Wis, but not +4 Con.
Wood Elf Fighter with +2 Str/Dex, Str/Wis, Dex/Con, or Dex/Wis.
Hill Dwarf Ranger with +2 Str/Con, Str/Wis, Dex/Con or Dex/Wis.
Wood Elf Ranger with +2 Str/Wis, Str/Dex, or Dex/Wis, but not +4 Dex.


13th age keeps coming up... and always in the context of things that appeal to me. I might have to find the time to look into it.

[Man_Over_Game]

13th age keeps coming up... and always in the context of things that appeal to me. I might have to find the time to look into it.

Really cool conceptually. Really really hard to DM in reality. Everything kinda uses relative distances to calculate everything (you are CLOSE to this enemy, you are ADJACENT to this enemy, you can move a CLOSE amount of distance each turn), not to mention that it has a sort of...improvised action system that...well, you'll see.