Better alternative than stat-less races

[Slipjig]

Nobody is advocating for "no difference." Of course different species playing the same class should have differences. And I'd argue that nobody wants there to be "bad choices" either. Some choices being better or worse than others, comparatively, is reasonable - but not being clearly or objectively "bad," there's still a baseline level of effectiveness that every species should be able to hit.

For example, picking Eladrin for your Warlock arguably gives it more interesting tactical options than picking Orc. But the Orc (a) isn't a bad choice for Warlock, and (b) gets a couple of interesting tactics of its own, especially for a Hexblade or Celestial.

That's kind of my thought on the whole thing. A +1 on your primary stat isn't honestly THAT big of a deal unless you are playing at a fairly-high-optimization table. And if you ARE playing at a high-optimization table where it's important that you pull your own weight, then make optimized choices.

Street Racing Game Player: I wanna drive an Edsel, because it's unique and different and I want to play against type!
Devs: Sure, here's an Edsel.
<Two minutes later>
Player: Why can't my Edsel keep up with the other players' Lambos?!? This is BULLS--T!

[JackPhoenix]

The Tasha's solution here is simple: make every race have floating modifiers, so that race choice is guided by their non-ASI features, and then make those non-ASI features really strong and distinctive. And though I was skeptical at first...

That's the thing: Trasha DOES have a solution, and applying it cost nothing. Not listing fixed ASIs for new races is pure laziness on WotC's art, whoever wants to give them floating ASIs at their table is free to do so.

[strangebloke]

That's kind of my thought on the whole thing. A +1 on your primary stat isn't honestly THAT big of a deal unless you are playing at a fairly-high-optimization table. And if you ARE playing at a high-optimization table where it's important that you pull your own weight, then make optimized choices.

Street Racing Game Player: I wanna drive an Edsel, because it's unique and different and I want to play against type!
Devs: Sure, here's an Edsel.
<Two minutes later>
Player: Why can't my Edsel keep up with the other players' Lambos?!? This is BULLS--T!

Yeah but a half-orc monk isn't "off meta" or "unique" it just sucks in the most boring possible way (having lower numbers)

With Tasha's rules Half-Orcs still aren't as good at being monks as other races, but they are a lot better than they were.

Meanwhile the optimizers get more options than just "play or tabax, wood elf... or just go vhuman/half elf again." Wood Elves and Tabaxi are really good still, but you can also play a mountain dwarf or goliath or bugbear or githzerai or dragonborn and be very strong while also being unique.

So the floor is a lot higher and there's a lot more diversity at the top level. Seems like an unmettled win?

That's the thing: Trasha DOES have a solution, and applying it cost nothing. Not listing fixed ASIs for new races is pure laziness on WotC's art, whoever wants to give them floating ASIs at their table is free to do so.

First of all, Tasha's didn't print new races so I'm not sure what you're on about.

As to other new races (fizbans dragonborn, owlkin, hobgoblins, MMOM races) I think the fact that you even need fixed ASIs listed for you rather underlines how arbitrary and stupid they are. If fixed ability mods actually correlated to something meaningful in the fluff, you wouldn't need fixed ASIs because you'd look at an autognome and go "oh obviously they get bonuses to int and wis" and it wouldn't be up for debate.

But you can't do that because fixed ability mods are completely arbitrary and don't really correspond to anything int the fluff.

[Captain Cap]

That's the thing: Trasha DOES have a solution, and applying it cost nothing. Not listing fixed ASIs for new races is pure laziness on WotC's art, whoever wants to give them floating ASIs at their table is free to do so.

Not all stats are created equal. As long as this itself isn't changed, you can't have races that are balanced against each other both with fixed and floating ASIs.

[Liquor Box]

In general, I would say that the goal should be to make every race as mechanically interesting as possible. Whether something is 'interesting' or not is subjective, but in general I would say that a race that is good for several classes while also being very different from other races that are good for those classes should be the goal.

Do you think each main race should be good at several classes or all classes? Because I've seen a few complaints in this thread that half-orcs (with fixed stats) aren't good at one particular class.

[Psyren]

Do you think each main race should be good at several classes or all classes? Because I've seen a few complaints in this thread that half-orcs (with fixed stats) aren't good at one particular class.

The only class I can really think of that the new Orc doesn't get as much out of is Rogue, and that's simply because Cunning Action Dash is somewhat redundant with Adrenaline Rush... and even then, AR has benefits over the former. The Orc's other features benefit a rogue quite beautifully too; Darkvision for sneaking around, Relentless Endurance to feign death in a dangerous situation, even Powerful Build to help you haul loot better than you could otherwise etc.

[JackPhoenix]

First of all, Tasha's didn't print new races so I'm not sure what you're on about.

I never said it did.

As to other new races (fizbans dragonborn, owlkin, hobgoblins, MMOM races) I think the fact that you even need fixed ASIs listed for you rather underlines how arbitrary and stupid they are. If fixed ability mods actually correlated to something meaningful in the fluff, you wouldn't need fixed ASIs because you'd look at an autognome and go "oh obviously they get bonuses to int and wis" and it wouldn't be up for debate.

But you can't do that because fixed ability mods are completely arbitrary and don't really correspond to anything int the fluff.

No, I can't do that because I don't give crap about new races. If I did, perhaps I could figure out what ASI they should have. Assuming they had anything to work with in the first place... there's barely any fluff for them.

[strangebloke]

Do you think each main race should be good at several classes or all classes? Because I've seen a few complaints in this thread that half-orcs (with fixed stats) aren't good at one particular class.

I think that fixed ability mods

• pigeonhole races into certain classes (half-orcs are only really good as barbarians and strength paladins/fighters)
• Make certain classes (particularly MAD classes like monk) have very few truly good options
• are really boring and don't actually serve to differentiate races to a useful or mechanically interesting degree.

"how strong is a half orc?"
"functionally, as strong as a strong half-elf."
"How strong is a tiefling?"
"as strong as a halfling."

No, I can't do that because I don't give crap about new races. If I did, perhaps I could figure out what ASI they should have. Assuming they had anything to work with in the first place... there's barely any fluff for them.

You've talked about races in "trashas" (which had no new races in it) said that you don't care about new releases, but are angry that they don't have fixed ASIs, but could easily figure out what they should be, if you cared/they had good lore.

Kinda hard to follow here.

But really, how good were the fixed ASIs at following the 'lore'? Dwarves having CON bonuses and Elves having DEX bonuses, sure. Strong half-orcs. But from there it gets murky.

Dragonborn in 3.5 were a template that could have any base states but had a bonus to CON and a malus to CHA, to reflect the process of their transformation leaving them hardened but also physically awkward. So logically you'd assume a CON bonus and a floating ASI, or somethingg similar in 5e. Instead they get STR and CHA because.... paladins? Sorcerer? It's a bit hard to parse, to be honest.

Tieflings had a malus to CHA in 3.5, to reflect that they were hated and feared, but in 5e they get a large bonus? Because horns are sexy? Or because wotc wanted them to be be warlocks IG? (nevermind that warlocks being CHA-based makes little sense based on lore...)

And of course gnomes did have a bonus to CON in 3.5 and some gnomes do now, but how much sense does that make? You're extra hardy despite being 3 feet tall?

Any actual examination of the fixed ASIs that most of these races actually has leads to the conclusion that an awful lot of these decisions were pretty much arbitrary and had large mechanical impacts for no real reason. And the net effect was that most people just played humans or half elves. It was just easier.

[NichG]

Do you think each main race should be good at several classes or all classes? Because I've seen a few complaints in this thread that half-orcs (with fixed stats) aren't good at one particular class.

The ideal would be that for each race/class combo, you would find players and corresponding builds and campaign contexts such that those players would say 'this is the best race for me to use in this build' and, if you were to shuffle the mechanics and fluff, those players would still say that about wherever the mechanics ended up landing.

Hard to universally achieve, but that would be the thing to aim for for me.

[Liquor Box]

I think that fixed ability mods
[*]pigeonhole races into certain classes (half-orcs are only really good as barbarians and strength paladins/fighters)

So paladins, barbarians and. Sounds like the pre-Tasha's half orc does have several class options.

[*]Make certain classes (particularly MAD classes like monk) have very few truly good options

They all have lots of options. Do you mean options where they get a bonus to their most important ability score? That is meant to make a race stand out at a certain class - you shouldn't look at it so you cannot play the class without it.

[*]are really boring and don't actually serve to differentiate races to a useful or mechanically interesting degree.

This one is obviously subjective, but can you explain what you mean differentiate them to a useful of mechanically interesting extent? Because it seems to me that the fact you think certain races are not suitable for certain classes means they are differentiated (if not in a way you personally think is interesting).

"how strong is a half orc?"
"functionally, as strong as a strong half-elf."
"How strong is a tiefling?"
"as strong as a halfling."

Yeah, seems silly right.

The ideal would be that for each race/class combo, you would find players and corresponding builds and campaign contexts such that those players would say 'this is the best race for me to use in this build' and, if you were to shuffle the mechanics and fluff, those players would still say that about wherever the mechanics ended up landing.

Hard to universally achieve, but that would be the thing to aim for for me.

I don't think that's a universal perspective (I know you are not saying it is) - some game designs deliberately restrict class access - DnD 1e and 2e did it, and it's not uncommon to have the dwarves are incompatible with magic trope.

A couple of questions. First, do you think that each class /race combo needs to be equally (or similarly) powerful. So would it bother you if you could make a gnome fighter which was viable, but it was still less well optimised than an orc fighter. Or an orc wizard is possible, but is less optimised than an elf wizard?

Second, do you think your preference for each class combo to be viable is the overriding factor? Or do you think it needs to be balanced against each race being meaningfully and mechanically different from one another, as well as avoiding the sillyness of small races being as strong as big races?

[Psyren]

"how strong is a half orc adventurer?"
"functionally, as strong as a strong half-elf adventurer."
"How strong is a tiefling adventurer?"
"as strong as a halfling adventurer."

Yeah, seems silly right.

Not with the edit for precision, no.

[NichG]

I don't think that's a universal perspective (I know you are not saying it is) - some game designs deliberately restrict class access - DnD 1e and 2e did it, and it's not uncommon to have the dwarves are incompatible with magic trope.

A couple of questions. First, do you think that each class /race combo needs to be equally (or similarly) powerful. So would it bother you if you could make a gnome fighter which was viable, but it was still less well optimised than an orc fighter. Or an orc wizard is possible, but is less optimised than an elf wizard?

Well, part of the reason I phrase it the way I do is to get away from the sense that every character can be summarized as a single number which is 'how powerful are they', because if you do that then it becomes difficult to actually see how you might design this.

I like to use Path of Exile as an example of a game (CRPG, yes) that has a huge diversity of builds, because there are multiple factors that can't be reduced into a single scalar power, and its relatively easy to see how those come about. I would say that the four main practical factors in a PoE character are: survivability, clear speed, DPS, and cost. If I'm playing a new league I will generally end up making 3-4 different characters in order to cover these bases. I need a fast clearing character to get currency and drops effectively and unlock maps, I need a high survivability character for certain special game modes like Delve as well as for things where the cost of dying is multiple hours of gameplay, I need a high DPS character for special bosses and endgame content, and I need these things at both a 'low cost' level as well as a 'high cost' level - the low cost level to act as a league starter, and the high cost level to hit higher peaks as I gain resources. So that's between 4 to 6 characters.

On top of that, different 'main attacks' have very different aesthetics of play. I can make a character who is relatively weak but is basically a walking simulator - they automatically kill things around them on-hit and on-kill and chain effects. I can make one-button characters, characters with complicated flask sequences and need to self-buff or react to situations with different active abilities, etc. I can make characters whose playstyle is that they have a 'rev up' period and then they sustain power for 30 seconds, or characters who summon armies and then mostly just buff their minions and keep themselves alive. Single-target absolute blenders, or characters who wipe out screens of weak mobs at a time and have to change to a high damage option against bosses, etc.

So rather than saying 'a gnome fighter has to be as powerful as an orc fighter', I want to instead say that, for some combination of purpose and plan and aesthetic of play and campaign context (low level, high level, low gear, high gear), I should feel like I would be worse off if I accepted an offer from the GM to keep the fluff of the gnome but get the orc's mechanics instead.

Maybe my personal aesthetics of play will never favor the gnome and every single time I'll do orc fighter. That's okay, so long as for some other set of players, their aesthetics of play go the other way around.

Second, do you think your preference for each class combo to be viable is the overriding factor? Or do you think it needs to be balanced against each race being meaningfully and mechanically different from one another, as well as avoiding the sillyness of small races being as strong as big races?

Its less about viability or silliness and more about what exactly 'meaningful diversity' should (IMO) mean. Having a bunch of things which are different in fluff but which play the same isn't really engaging with diversity, its avoiding the question - at that point, better just do all-human IMO. Having a bunch of things which are basically forced choices if you care at all about optimizing to your own purposes fails to actually be diverse - if you play a fighter you play the best race for fighters, etc. The path through the paradox is to have differences which do matter and strongly, but which matter differently to different players because they catch on to different things you could try to be optimizing for.

[RedWarlock]

Honestly, I think it's because inter-score balance is busted, and the classes have received nowhere near the polish in design that would allow the stats and racial abilities to be more balanced for a wider variety of cases (including atypical arrays, broad-spreads and valid secondary stat ideals), so instead the designers went to a default of treating the races all the same, in terms of how their abilities (both stats/bonuses and intangibles) interacted with the class abilities.

I think the designers took the easy way out, and that put the onus of viability onto the races, which was exacerbated by the current social trend of looking at game-races with an eye to player diversity. Things like, if a race already has a swim speed, or darkvision, or armor proficiency, then a class ability recreates it, that whole feature is wasted, when they could've added a minor line that gives that bonus some further benefit for the overlap, like an improved value (as w/ swim/darkvision), or stacking further benefits. That kind of stuff being missing just makes the whole system feel lazily designed.

[Witty Username]

But really, how good were the fixed ASIs at following the 'lore'? Dwarves having CON bonuses and Elves having DEX bonuses, sure. Strong half-orcs. But from there it gets murky.

My personal preferred example is Drow, prior editions and current setting stuff get into drow have long practiced and affinity to magic, along with the elite classes of their society being Clerics and Wizards along with this. So one would expect an int or wis bonus, 3.5 did some gender dimorphism with favored classes being wizard for male drow (excluded from the clergy) and Cleric for female drow (part of the clergy of Loth, or a disappointment to ones family). And they get Cha, for the noble reason, that high elf got Int and Wood elf got Wis, and that left Cha for drow.

On this note, if you want to use fixed ASIs at table, floating ASIs still has some benefits as a DM tool, if you see the stats of different races as off base, or correct with some caveats. Like say if you think elves should have a strength bonus instead of a mental stat (they are supposed to be good with longswords aren't they?). Alternatively, you can use it to tailor world-building, (Dragonborn will have an int bonus instead of cha, because we are repurposing the race a bit for this world).

But now we are at the phase of this conversation, fixed ASI tables lose nothing, floating ASI tables gain utility, and fixed ASI with addendums gets a balance is probably fine token from the Dev team. Even if ones preference is fixed, the game is benefited by the shift as it harms no one, and provides an additional point of utility.

[qube]

Maybe because the latter makes the character unequivocally better at insert class than others,

Well, that's my point. What you describe is a game mechanical effect.

As pointed out in post 1 (and various times in this thread), I'm advocating that this would not longer be the case. Regardless if you make

• a warlock who maxed INT or CHA
• a wizard who maxed INT or CON
• a fighter who maxed STR or DEX

Your attack, damage, AC, init and DC would be the same (presuming both builds take the same combat style scores).

for any given 5e class, your primary stat is worth more than your secondary stat is worth more than your tertiary, quaternary, quinary, and senary stats.

Quite true. Now - I'd say attack, damage modifier, DC, etc ... is what determines what is a classes primairy, ... stats?

So if we make two characters with the concept "championship level knight" with largely identical capabilities (like Brienne and Jaime) but some designer decides it's a great idea to make Brienne get a Str penalty because she's a girl, then instead of a party with Brienne and Jaime (who are equally capable) you get a party with Jaime and some less capable girl who is not as qualified to be in the party as he is, because she's short a feat.

And why should Brienne be a more expensive character to build than Jaime? Because Brienne is a more unusual example of her gender?

If I note, (arguably)

• Brienne & Jaime are equally capable
• Brienne & The mountain who are equally exceptional (both significantly stronger indivduals compared to their respective group)

But also

• The Viper & The mountain also equally capable - despite the mountain being significantly stronger.

I wouldn't be surprized if Brienne was stronger then The Viper. And that's what I advocate: that this OK - that doesn't mean Brienne, or The Viper, should be less capable fighters then The Mountain. In a fight, people use their own strengths.

if you found a similarly inconsequential way to represent elven grace I would evaluate that in similar fashion, but ability scores and modifiers ain't it as Captain Cap stated.

so ... *points to post 1 of this thread* ... like that?

Again, if you're against elves getting +2 DEX as the game is now - I 100% get that. To quote

Imagine you want to make Auroth, a brutal Orc Sorcerer.
Orcs don't get the sorcerer casting stat? too bad for you.

At least for me, the thing that makes a dragonborn interesting is the dragonbreath, the str and cha bonuses are just fiddling numbers. Now if this was 3.5 where having a +8 strength bonus was just on the table, sure. But 5e isn't equipped to handle that.

one of my fav characters was a lvl 1 fighter half-dragon with a lvl 4 party :)

But more then that, while in default 5E, +8 STR is indeed OP, ... looking at post 1, they idea of +8 strength, while powerful, doesn't seem ... THAT overpowered. (vs a default +2 STR race, it ends up a +3 difference on strength saves and skills.)

[Psyren]

so ... *points to post 1 of this thread* ... like that?

You mean the convoluted mess of complexity for complexity's sake that still results in race X being strictly better at class X than race Y?

No. Not like that.

[strangebloke]

So paladins, barbarians and. Sounds like the pre-Tasha's half orc does have several class options.

3, maybe 4 classes that a given race is actually good for is not some stunning example of flexibility.

They all have lots of options. Do you mean options where they get a bonus to their most important ability score? That is meant to make a race stand out at a certain class - you shouldn't look at it so you cannot play the class without it.

This one is obviously subjective, but can you explain what you mean differentiate them to a useful of mechanically interesting extent? Because it seems to me that the fact you think certain races are not suitable for certain classes means they are differentiated (if not in a way you personally think is interesting).

You say that ability scores are "meant to make a race stand out"

But objectively they don't. WRT strength, for example, you either have a bonus or you don't. All races either (can) have a bonus to STR, or can't. A Half-Orc isn't stronger than a mountain dwarf or half elf or human or bugbear or goliath. Meanwhile everything that doesn't have that modifier is also the same. Gnomes are as strong as elves are as strong as tabaxi are as strong as halflings, etc.

Fixed ability scores create two categories of race, for any given stat: those that have a bonus to the stat, and those who don't. Dividing every race into two categories doesn't make them distinctive. There's no differentiation among the halves.

What post-tasha's has been done, is to throw away fixed ability scores as a source of distinctiveness AND REPLACE IT WITH OTHER FEATURES.

Look at PHB dragonborn. Look at Fizban's Dragonborn. Tell me with a straight face that the Fizban's Dragonborn is less interesting. Tell me that the MMOM Goliath is less interesting than the EE version.

Yeah, seems silly right.

Dude, that was literally all true in the player's hand book.

If I note, (arguably)

• Brienne & Jaime are equally capable
• Brienne & The mountain who are equally exceptional (both significantly stronger indivduals compared to their respective group)

But also

• The Viper & The mountain also equally capable - despite the mountain being significantly stronger.

I wouldn't be surprized if Brienne was stronger then The Viper. And that's what I advocate: that this OK - that doesn't mean Brienne, or The Viper, should be less capable fighters then The Mountain. In a fight, people use their own strengths.

Come on dude, you don't actually think that someone getting +2 to DEX or whatever compensates for not getting a +2 to their main stat.

It's obvious that in a version of DND where men get a bonus to strength and women don't, Brienne would be a deeply suboptimal build. And while that might make sense in a system that's intended to reflect the unforgiving and brutal world of westeros, it makes very little sense in DND, a system which has an aesthetic that I'd generally describe as "woo woo flashy magic explodey bang woo bang slash"

But more then that, while in default 5E, +8 STR is indeed OP, ... looking at post 1, they idea of +8 strength, while powerful, doesn't seem ... THAT overpowered. (vs a default +2 STR race, it ends up a +3 difference on strength saves and skills.)

I mean partially that's because STR sucks, but no.

Someone with (functionally) a +3 magic greatsword out the gate? I've let someone build this character. He destroyed every encounter unless he got CC'd to oblivion, and his damage was good enough that he could load up on feats that made it hard to CC him.

Its "fine" because a dumb STR fighter is basically never breaking the game, but do this with DEX or WIS and the problem gets way more severe.

[qube]

You mean the convoluted mess of complexity for complexity's sake that still results in race X being strictly better at class X than race Y?

No, post 1 of this thread.

Considering it's not convoluted, nor complex, nor for complexity's sake - I can only conclude you're looking at something else.

But just in case you were looking at the first post of this thread, and you found something too complex, you are free to point it out, so I can explain it - and even maybe edit it in the first post.

Come on dude, you don't actually think that someone getting +2 to DEX or whatever compensates for not getting a +2 to their main stat.

Oh no, I 100% agree. Because "+2 to their main stat", is not just +1 to save & skills, but also to attack & damage (or spells DCs, or ...)

so ... that's where I got the idea: what if that "attack & damage (or spells DCs, or ...)" thing from the previous sentence ... would no longer be tied to the 6 existing ability scores, but a new set:

• the 6 ability score describe a character natural attributes (strength, intelligence, ...)
• another set of scores that allowing you to determine your fighting style. (do you focus on attacks, on the DC of your abilities, on your AC, etc ...)

As you state yourself: the problem with +8 STR vs +2 STR, basically is that they get a "free +3 greatsword" - a free +3 to attack & damage. Which is ONLY the case, as long as attack & damage work on strength.

If attack no longer works on strength ... then suddenly the entire game of throne cast becomes a possibility:

• Brienne of Tarth - could combine her focus (wisdom) & strength
• Jamie Lansiter - could combine strength with charisma
• Stannis Baratheon - could be a high intelligence character, where you flavor his capability by knowing 1001 strategies & sword techniques; and of course, corring people's grammar
• Jon Snow - could be an all round character - some strength, consitution, wisdom & charisma.
• Oberyn Martell - could be one who combines dexterity and charisma

As DnD is now, these characters don't get made, because the "spellcasting ability score", the "attack ability score", ... are ability scores. Whatever you attack ability score is (STR for fighters, INT for wizards, CHA for sorcerers) ... you get pushed to maximize that. If you don't - you miss out on that "+3 greatsword" ... meaning, every fighter ends up as The Mountain.

Spoiler

Show

Spoiler

Show

[Dr.Samurai]

Like many, I don't like the way D&D 5e moved away from racial bonusses. I understand why: from a game-mechanicaly point, as long as there's a train of thought you should max out your main ability score ... then races not boosting said score simply won't be an option. And that's a bad thing.

Imagine you want to make Auroth, a brutal Orc Sorcerer.
Orcs don't get the sorcerer casting stat? too bad for you.

But I like to look at things from a narative point of view.

From a narative point, there's no problem with a half orc fighter and an eladrin fighter being equally capable - but it doesn't make sense they'd be equally strong. After all, while the half orc's mighty swings might cleave through armor, the elf's graceful strikes draws blood between the plates.

high elf fighter, orc fighter, gnome fighter ... STR20 the lot of them

---------------------------

That's why I suggest something else

combat style scores

Auroth, Orc, Acolyte Sorcerer 1
Str 14 (+2) Dex 12 (+1) Con 16 (+3) Int 13 (+1) Wis 10 (+0) Cha 11 (+0)
Weapon 12(+1) Defense 13(+1) Toughness 16(+3) Mysticism 16 (+3)
Athletics (+3), Arcana (+3) Religion (+2) Insight Skill (+2) Intimidation (+2) Persuasion(+2)
AC: 11, hp: 9
Quarterstaff. +3 to hit, 1d6+1 damage.
Spells +5 to hit, DC 13

There are four combat style scores:

• (WPN) weapon (attack & damage)
• (DEF) defense (AC, initiative)
• (THG) toughness (hit point)
• (MYS) mysticism (magic, innate abilities, ...)

At character creation, you put 15, 14, 13, 12 in them. Then add a +2 to one and a +1 to another. Every time your ability scores increase, you may likewise pick these scores to boost.

(Dirty little secret : mechanically, combat style scores are just what your standard array abilty scores would be if optimized them. )

Your combat statistics are caclulated from those.

• Your sword doesn't use PROF+STR, but PROF+WPN, and the damage is 1d8+WPN.
• Your AC is not 10+DEX but 10+DEF
• ...

Auroth Might be strong, he's not quite melee focussed, so isn't that good with his quarterstaff.
Quarterstaff. +[proficiency+weapon] to hit, 1d6+[weapon] damage. (instead of strength)
in Auroth's flavor he uses bloodmagic, he's ability to manifest powerful spells despite not being that charismatic.
spells use mysticism instead of charisma to cast spells

Most things are common sense, but it's important to note that sometimes classes fuse two fighting styles.

• barbarians mix toughness & mysticism (their abilities work on CON)
• monks & rogues & rangers mix weapon and defense (they attack and defend on DEX)
• hexblades fuse weapon & mysticism (they attack on CHA)

while SAD classes might virtually not use certain abilities (ex. melee for wizards)

-----------------


Or would you rather have a halfling swashbuckler-style fighter who uses taunts and feints as defense? A sword wielding elf fighter (a slashing sword, not a rapier)? A strong smithy dwarf artificier, ... These, and much more options are now viable options - without having to trade in flavor for game mechanics.

How does Armor interact with this?

[Aimeryan]

The absolute values do matter, and the fact that you think they don't is why we're unable to come to any kind of compromise on this. A big part of what we (those of us who want ability modifiers decoupled from species) want is a floor that is higher than a fixed ability score penalty and a ceiling that is below a fixed ability score bonus. Reattaching those, or their equivalents, to a given species to make it strictly better or strictly worse than all other options with that modifier as their key ability is the nonstarter here. As strangebloke mentioned, your key ability is "very mechanically important" (absolute value) in a way that something like increased carrying capacity or even counting as a size larger for specific calculations is not.



No, this is still the same false dichotomy that you and others insist on perpetuating. My presence in the "Not wanting to be penalized by absolute values" camp does not mean I don't "want choices to matter." I can and do have both in a post-Tasha's/MPMM world. Just because choosing to play an Orc Warlock is not penalizing me mathematically over an Eladrin one anymore, does not mean the choice between the two doesn't have any impact. An even cursory read of the features they get proves that belief to be false.

You are getting fixated on the specifics of how things are now and making any position as adjacent to this, where as, I am talking more generalised. So, for example, you argue for wanting differences while not liking being mathematically penalised and therefore stats cannot be a part of the race to achieve this; in my ideal, all the stats would have value to all classes, just in different ways. In this scenario, there is no penalisation for a race/class combo, only for a specific build. So in this ideal, stats can achieve this.

Yes, of course, everyone in one camp or the other that I specified doesn't want all the same things - there are near infinite divisions within these camps. So you and I may want differences in race/species and yet want totally different differences. The problem for both of us is that the current trend of 5e is going towards no differences, and there is a camp that desires that so we can't say WotC are objectively wrong to do so.

I actually think 5e is probably best suited to the approach of no differences. What could be simpler? What could be more 5e? All flash, no bang. I'll be awaiting a whole different edition.

[ZRN]

Jumping in this thread late, but if it hasn't been said yet, I think it's worth noting WHY someone might care about not getting a +2 to their main stat. It's not just because they're irrationally obsessed with being "the best." It's because in 5e, (1) a strong majority of your offensive rolls (or DCs) are usually based in ONE stat, and (2) boosting stats comes at the opportunity cost of not getting a feat, and feats are really precious commodities.

So if I'm a high level rogue with 18 Dex instead of 20, I'm 5+% less likely to succeed on every attempt to do anything even vaguely roguish - sneak around, stab someone in the back, pick a lock, whatever. The only way to fix that is to give up one of my feats for an ASI, and (especially as a non-spellcaster) this means giving up one of very few customization points after level 3, just to stay mechanically on par with a more "optimal" race.

I've actually suggested something similar to the OP but just for attack bonuses and spell DCs, because I think that change alone would drastically reduce the relative importance of primary stats.

[Yakk]

Even simpler is to make stats not modify save DCs and to-hit.

The stats are too mechanically important. A +2 to strength improves your PC as much as +4 levels in your classes core ability to do something.

The option of +2 to a prime stat means "do you want your character to be 4 levels more competent or not", which is why it was mandatory, and why having it in-game was a problem.

[JNAProductions]

Something I think might be worth linking, from about three or four months ago.

[Psyren]

No, post 1 of this thread.

Considering it's not convoluted, nor complex, nor for complexity's sake - I can only conclude you're looking at something else.

But just in case you were looking at the first post of this thread, and you found something too complex, you are free to point it out, so I can explain it - and even maybe edit it in the first post.

By convoluted I didn't mean incomprehensible, I meant overengineered and unnecessary.

Yes, your additional invented stat layer allows for an Orc swordfighter to smash through their opponent's defenses with brute strength, and the Eladrin swordfighter to slip around their defenses and target vital areas with precision, thus fitting your narrative preconceptions about how all members of these species would approach a swordfight. This is something the game already lets you do by simply choosing to be a Str- or Dex-based fighter and putting your highest score there, but I digress. I understand your goal was to make racial ASIs more palatable by decoupling combat statistics from them and putting them towards these new scores instead, letting you play an off-meta race without falling behind in terms of raw damage output or defense.

The problem with this is that the fantasy of being a "dex fighter" or "str fighter" does not begin and end at making and receiving attack rolls. Ability checks and saving throws happen during combat too. If someone is playing an agile combatant, they're not just wanting to keep up in terms of damage with a rapier or bow, they want to be someone that can walk a tightrope, or sneak past a guard, or dodge a spray of acid etc. Similarly, the person wanting to be Str-based also wants to hold a door shut against an onrushing horde, or drag a fallen ally to safety with one hand, or flip a table to use as cover, or shove a teetering statue onto their enemies. In short, even with your added layer, stats are still more than just cosmetic addons to a character even during a fight. And by keeping racial ASIs fixed, you're saying that Orc adventurers can never be as good at the former set while Eladrin ones can never be as good at the latter set. And that is unacceptable.

Or I suppose you could keep going with additions to your layer, adding on more Defense scores for all the things that saving throws tied to those stats would originally represent, and utility scores for all the things that ability checks key off of. And when you're done, the racial ASIs won't cause issues anymore, because they won't mean anything.

The problem for both of us is that the current trend of 5e is going towards no differences, and there is a camp that desires that so we can't say WotC are objectively wrong to do so.

This is the premise I fundamentally disagree with, yes. Which means that no, it's not a problem for both of us - just you.

[ZRN]

Even simpler is to make stats not modify save DCs and to-hit.

The stats are too mechanically important. A +2 to strength improves your PC as much as +4 levels in your classes core ability to do something.

The option of +2 to a prime stat means "do you want your character to be 4 levels more competent or not", which is why it was mandatory, and why having it in-game was a problem.

Yes, agreed.

I think just taking this relatively simple step (maybe just double PB on attack rolls and DCs instead of adding an ability modifier?) opens up a lot more diversity in ability score allocations. For example, a 16-Str, 20-Con barbarian does a tad less damage than 20-Str, 16-Con, but he has a lower AC and fewer HP.

The biggest remaining issue is that if this isn't a part of a broader revamp (like 5.5), you end up with weirdnesses like Wizards not caring much about Int.

[strangebloke]

Something I think might be worth linking, from about three or four months ago.

A good take.

I've also pointed out that switching to a pure point-buy system for stats also completely avoids the issue, since it doesn't lock you into this "boost the main stat or get a feat or you're wasting build resources" mindset.

[Envyus]

I never said it did.



No, I can't do that because I don't give crap about new races. If I did, perhaps I could figure out what ASI they should have. Assuming they had anything to work with in the first place... there's barely any fluff for them.

I feel you have not read much of the new stuff. Anyway ASIs are not needed to be part of species background makes more sense for that.

[Dr.Samurai]

ASIs make sense on any of it. Race, background, class. Any of it could influence your stats.

[Witty Username]

No, post 1 of this thread.

As I mentioned on page one, my primary thought on the matter of the house rule is we already have a system for skill set as aposed to atrltributes, which is proficiency. Adding a set of scores is fine, but also an additional set of numbers to track, and if it is just a set of numbers to make the class a go-go it doesn't need to be fungable like ability scores.
Double proficiency bonus and half the effects of ability scores was my recommendation. The exact numbers could be tinkered, but it generally reduces the concerns with ability score chasing and solves a minor problem I have with ability scores, which is they are more role defining that class for the most part.

[Anymage]

The problem with this is that the fantasy of being a "dex fighter" or "str fighter" does not begin and end at making and receiving attack rolls. Ability checks and saving throws happen during combat too. If someone is playing an agile combatant, they're not just wanting to keep up in terms of damage with a rapier or bow, they want to be someone that can walk a tightrope, or sneak past a guard, or dodge a spray of acid etc. Similarly, the person wanting to be Str-based also wants to hold a door shut against an onrushing horde, or drag a fallen ally to safety with one hand, or flip a table to use as cover, or shove a teetering statue onto their enemies. In short, even with your added layer, stats are still more than just cosmetic addons to a character even during a fight. And by keeping racial ASIs fixed, you're saying that Orc adventurers can never be as good at the former set while Eladrin ones can never be as good at the latter set. And that is unacceptable.

If core combat competencies are left out of it and we're just looking at stunting, why is an halfling having a slight edge at being Quick while a dragonborn has an edge being Powerful a bad thing, while a dwarf will have an edge on resisting poison over my elf no matter how much I write "iron stomach" on my character sheet. (And if I convince the DM to give me an actual Iron Stomach feat, that would tie up a feat slot that the dwarf could use for something else useful instead.) Once you reach the level of what sort of stunts you do instead of how well you do your basic job, that sounds about right for racial differentiation if we're going to have racial differentiation at all.

Of course core competencies are going to remain tied to stats, because if WotC even thought about decoupling them there'd be raging about how the resulting game was "not D&D". But if that weren't the case, when would it be okay to say that one character will forever have an edge on something because of their racespecies. And if the answer is "never", what's the point of racial features existing anyways?