Alternate Ability Score Method

[Kemev]

Some quick background: when Tasha's was announced, I liked the idea of splitting off ability scores from race (besides D&D, I play a lot of Fantasy Flight RPGs like Dark Heresy, and although I think 5e is a better system overall, I like the idea of abilities derived from the choices your character made and their life history).

I don't love how Tasha's implemented the ability score spin-off though... it's still stuck in the paradigm of abilities being based of genetics (or whatever the equivalent is in fairy-tale world). I don't really want to do the DM homework of inventing nations of strong elves or giant gnomes or whatever, and honestly knowing my players, the options are kind of overwhelming.

For the next campaign I want to run, I'm thinking about giving players ability bonuses based only on class and background. For +2s, I've basically cribbed off the multiclassing requirements chart.

Barbarian Strength +2
Bard Charisma +2
Cleric Wisdom +2
Druid Wisdom +2
Fighter Strength OR Dexterity +2
Monk Dexterity OR Wisdom +2
Paladin Strength OR Charisma +2
Ranger Dexterity OR Wisdom +2
Rogue Dexterity +2
Sorcerer Charisma +2
Warlock Charisma +2
Wizard Intelligence +2

+1s would be assigned by background (at this point, there are more than I can keep track of, but it'd look something like this):

Str: Folk Hero, Knight, Soldier
Dex: Criminal, Urchin, Pirate
Con: Gladiator, Outlander
Int: Artisan, Sage
Wis: Acolyte, Hermit
Cha: Charlatan, Entertainer, Noble

I'm not super-keen on allowing people to stack their abilities for a +3. I can't remember if this is the official rule, but typically for background skills/tools, we allow players to pick another option if they would end up with redundancies, and I think that's what I'd want for ability scores as well. (For example, if you're an Elf Sailor - both of which give Perception proficiency - you pick another skill of your choice. Same would apply for the +1 ASI... if you're a Wizard Sage, you wouldn't get +3 Int, you'd get +1 to any other ability of your choice.) I could be argued out of this though.

Humans would start as variant human, with the added restriction that they can't pick one of the half-feats as their starting feat (although I could be argued out of this too).

Any thoughts before I pitch this to my players?

P.S. If it makes a difference, I'm leaning towards an adjusted starting array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

I don't love how Tasha's implemented the ability score spin-off though... it's still stuck in the paradigm of abilities being based of genetics (or whatever the equivalent is in fairy-tale world). I don't really want to do the DM homework of inventing nations of strong elves or giant gnomes or whatever, and honestly knowing my players, the options are kind of overwhelming.

Just so you know, it's explicitly not based on genetics now.

The idea is that adventurers are special, so you don't have to make a nation of strong elves or giant gnomes. You can make the nations whatever you like, you just don't have to restrict a gnome player to making a smart gnome just because the gnome nation skews smart. You let the players get away from the stereotypes, because adventurers don't follow the same rules. So it isn't any more work for you, really.

Anyway that being said, your way of doing it seems fine, except its honestly a lot more work because there are a LOT of backgrounds. It also tends to be restrictive based on what the assumed playstyle of a class is, rather than what a player might opt to do (dex barbarian for example).

[OldTrees1]

Consider which variations this hinders. You might find reason to expand the options. For example:
Rogue Strength OR Dexterity +2

[Kemev]

The idea is that adventurers are special, so you don't have to make a nation of strong elves or giant gnomes. You can make the nations whatever you like, you just don't have to restrict a gnome player to making a smart gnome just because the gnome nation skews smart. You let the players get away from the stereotypes, because adventurers don't follow the same rules. So it isn't any more work for you, really.

I think my group and I have a different take-away of what a custom lineage means. I'm agreed that a protagonist character in a story is likely different from the supporting characters, but I feel like TCoE has some circular reasoning with its ability scores... if any race can have any set ability bonuses, why are ability bonuses a feature of race at all?


Consider which variations this hinders. You might find reason to expand the options. For example:
Rogue Strength OR Dexterity +2

Could you elaborate a bit? I think you're trying to say the same thing as Isaacs above with the dex barbarian... is it limiting off-beat archetypes?

Most of the strength-based rogues I could imagine are multiclass builds, and there's nothing stopping a player from starting out as a fighter or barbarian if that's what they want (or settling for a +1 Str from soldier background).

[MoiMagnus]

Why not just change the standard array to account for the +2/+1?
If you want to give 15/14/13/12/11/10, just give instead 17/15/13/12/11/10
(or 16/16/13/12/11/10, if you prefer)

[SiCK_Boy]

I would not bother with the +1 for backgrounds, and instead just allow a floating +1 to any stat, in line with the way backgrounds already allow you to pick any alternative skill or language.

As for the +2 bonus being class-driven, it is just as arbitrary as having it be race-driven, but you’ll probably have less player complaints since the whole issue seemed to have started with players feeling penalized by having sub-optimal class primary stat. But at that point, you may as well leave it as a floating +2 since most players will pick what works for their class anyway.

You are basically switching the bonus from reinforcing racial archetype and instead have it reinforce class archetype. The impetus to play against race is probably stronger than the impetus to play against class (never heard of someone wanting to play a dumb wizard, but we do hear talk of people wanting to play something else than a strong half-orc), so it should work okay.

I don’t think background supports any archetype (it’s never a defining feature of a character, by design), so I’m not sure you are encouraging anything by linking specific +1 to specific backgrounds.