Better alternative than stat-less races

[OldTrees1]

I never understood the humans in hats arguments. I really don't see how not having a +2 con and +1 str equates to either +1 in all stats nothing more, or +1 to two stats a feat and a skill. Especially when the former has like, dark vision, and a number of other traits up to and including spells. Unless the argument isn't a mechanical one in which case it being brought up when discussing mechanics is a little confusing.

Did you want to understand it?

Imagine a system where species are actually quite distinct from each other. They have many qualitative differences and a few quantitative ones.

Now imagine a system that took only the species that were the most similar already relatively speaking (mostly demihuman species with much less qualitative diversity), condensed similar traits, removed other traits, and filled in the balance gaps with cultural traits (which are things that don't actually make them feel different, it just feels weird).

Now down the line decide to remove one of the remaining species differences. It doesn't really matter which one. It could have been deciding all species are Medium Sized with no Darkvision. The importance is it is yet another difference removed moving them towards being the same.

This is the "humans with hats" argument. It is not even about ASIs themselves (and especially not about the cultural feature ASIs). It is not about claiming they are already identical. It is about disliking the direction where the pool of species is made more homogenized and less diverse. The less you have left, the more you cling to it.

If species stat boosts and/or negatives would become a thing again then I feel that the species traits should in some way balance what is lost.

This is a good idea. I do like drawbacks, and packaging a drawback with some way to balance what is lost is nice. I was recently thinking about a slow Snail that could not jump but could climb. The speed and jump drawbacks getting some way to balance it.

Likewise we should have more species without stat boosts that get something to balance what was lost there. We don't need a +2/+1 pattern everywhere.

[Hurrashane]

Did you want to understand it?

Imagine a system where species are actually quite distinct from each other. They have many qualitative differences and a few quantitative ones.

Now imagine a system that took only the species that were the most similar already relatively speaking (mostly demihuman species with much less qualitative diversity), condensed similar traits, removed other traits, and filled in the balance gaps with cultural traits (which are things that don't actually make them feel different, it just feels weird).

Now down the line decide to remove one of the remaining species differences. It doesn't really matter which one. It could have been deciding all species are Medium Sized with no Darkvision. The importance is it is yet another difference removed moving them towards being the same.

This is the "humans with hats" argument. It is not even about ASIs themselves (and especially not about the cultural feature ASIs). It is not about claiming they are already identical. It is about disliking the direction where the pool of species is made more homogenized and less diverse. The less you have left, the more you cling to it.

I don't think I've played a system where the species are that distinct from eachother. Granted I've played mostly D&D 3.5 onwards (with a few CRPGs using AD&D), Pathfinder 1e and a few point based systems where races are what you want to build them.

Usually I see the humans in hats argument as a thing that is, not a thing that may become. Most I've seen say that express it like, "the races in 5e are just humans in hats" to which I don't agree. I can understand it as a fear of homogenization, though I also disagree D&D is headed in that direction.

[NichG]

I don't think I've played a system where the species are that distinct from eachother. Granted I've played mostly D&D 3.5 onwards (with a few CRPGs using AD&D), Pathfinder 1e and a few point based systems where races are what you want to build them.

Usually I see the humans in hats argument as a thing that is, not a thing that may become. Most I've seen say that express it like, "the races in 5e are just humans in hats" to which I don't agree. I can understand it as a fear of homogenization, though I also disagree D&D is headed in that direction.

I mean, in 3.5ed you could play basically anything with an LA from the monster manuals, and with Savage Species you could do a lot of that stuff starting from 1st level. Is there any sort of equivalent to that in 5e?

[OldTrees1]

I mean, in 3.5ed you could play basically anything with an LA from the monster manuals, and with Savage Species you could do a lot of that stuff starting from 1st level. Is there any sort of equivalent to that in 5e?

If 5E printed or 1D&D prints an equivalent of Savage Species, then it would disprove my criticisms.

I am currently playing a Mind Flayer in a Spelljammer campaign. I want to play a Mimic PC later. I gave a short falsification test of these 5 species: "Large Giant, a Myconid, a Mimic, a Ghoul, and a Tiny Spider". Even 3.5E's Warforged, Dragonborn, and Necropolitians are LA+0 examples.

Yeah, NichG Groks it.

[Hurrashane]

I mean, in 3.5ed you could play basically anything with an LA from the monster manuals, and with Savage Species you could do a lot of that stuff starting from 1st level. Is there any sort of equivalent to that in 5e?

There's rules for it in the 5e DMG I'm pretty sure. Also nothing stopping you from, say, letting someone play as a Dragon either by making it a race or just letting them use the stat block and adding class levels to it.

Also iirc Savage Species was a 3e book and required a fair bit of tweaking to make it work properly in 3.5... Not that, again iirc, it was lauded as being balanced in any way. And savage species I think gave you like, a monster class. So you were essentially a human with a hat, effectively as monstrous as a Dragon Disciple.

[NichG]

There's rules for it in the 5e DMG I'm pretty sure. Also nothing stopping you from, say, letting someone play as a Dragon either by making it a race or just letting them use the stat block and adding class levels to it.

Also iirc Savage Species was a 3e book and required a fair bit of tweaking to make it work properly in 3.5... Not that, again iirc, it was lauded as being balanced in any way. And savage species I think gave you like, a monster class. So you were essentially a human with a hat, effectively as monstrous as a Dragon Disciple.

If the particular question is whether the official D&D line has moved towards homogeneity or not, its not really relevant what a table could theoretically come up with a way to do. Similarly, whether it's balanced or not is an orthogonal concern.

[Hurrashane]

If the particular question is whether the official D&D line has moved towards homogeneity or not, its not really relevant what a table could theoretically come up with a way to do. Similarly, whether it's balanced or not is an orthogonal concern.

I guess then, yes. Official player options are less varied than they have been in the past. But given what we've seen in the OD&D playtest I doubt there's some kind of homogeneous singularity anywhere on the horizon.

[qube]

Not quite - I don't have a problem as long as you don't want the books to say elf PCs have +2 Dex.

And in my mind, that makes no sense at all. Because that's saying.

• BAD
  Racial Ability score: +2 dex
  while
• GOOD
  Ability: eleven dexterity : your dexterity modifier counts as 1 higher

After all, the second isn't a racial ability score ...

What I'm saying is

• "Goliaths are stronger then elves" thus they have inherently more carrying capacity = good
• "Goliaths are stronger then elves" thus they are inherently better in melee combat = bad

From a game mechanical point of view - it does not matter how "stronger" is implemented. Be it an ability score, or an ability.

What does the array PCs use have to do with fixed vs. variable ASIs? These are two different things.

EXACTLY!

Even this wouldn't be that much of a problem if any character could make an impactful use of any ability.

quite true.
that was my first line of thought, but I didn't find a way to implement this in a way that can't be abused into making characters SAD.

Human women and men are real people, unlike orcs and elves,

counterpoint: I would argue that D&D humans, are moddeled after real humans, but they are still the fantasy/verisimilitude of them.
(simplest example: I don't see neither dying of an infiction of a cut - a very real problem back in the day)


--------------------
Fun fact: BTW: consider what happens if commoner elves get +2 DEX and commoner goliats get +2 STR.
That means, that in their society that's common, that's the norm.

From their respective point of view, adventures can be exceptionally strong, but fumbling, elves, or expetionally dexteriours, but weak goliaths ... but there's no such thing as expetionally strong goliaths or exceptionally dexterious elves

[Witty Username]

However you can prove me wrong if 1D&D includes a Large Giant, a Myconid, a Mimic, a Ghoul, and a Tiny Spider official species. If your scapegoat is really to blame, then 1D&D could deliver.

Why would any of those have any baring on the races we are using now?

Like take say a Fire Giant, in the MM they have a strength of 25, would that really fit +2 str, +1 con (as mentioned, statisticly equal to or weaker than a human)?

If worse or as good as human is all we get anyway, fixed ASIs just pigeonhole races into particular classes.

Now, if we got a Fire Giant PC race with a +8 strength bonus, interesting, but also bounded accuracy would have to go out the window for designs like that.

From their respective point of view, adventures can be exceptionally strong, but fumbling, elves, or expetionally dexteriours, but weak goliaths ... but there's no such thing as expetionally strong goliaths or exceptionally dexterious elves

An exceptionally strong Goliath has 20 strength.
An exceptionally strong Elf has 20 strength.
Neither of which are prohibited by the rules, even without taking into account floating ASIs.

[Captain Cap]

but also bounded accuracy would have to go out the window for designs like that.

Yes please.

[JackPhoenix]

Also while removing ASI from species selection may be more or less interesting, for me at least, it certainly opens up the possibility of playing non-humans. Playing a mountain dwarf wizard is a much more enticing prospect when not burdened with the +2 strength they'll never need.

See, that's the thing... to you, dwarf wizard is "burdened with +2 Str they'll never need", because you (apparently) think a dwarf wizard must be build the same way as every other wizard (except wearing armor, I guess), while to me, it raises a question "how do I play a wizard in a way that makes +2 Str and weapon and armor proficiencies useful while dealing with the fact enemies have 5% better chance to save against my spells". The possiblity of playing non-human was always there, but now it's less interesting, because I should just default to bog-standard wizard where being a dwarf make little to no difference. I DON'T have to, of course, but there's nothing to provoke thinking and to go with anything except no-brain "put ASI to Int, ignore weapon proficiencies, proceed as normal".

I suspect it was the case with 3.5 Eberron's famous halfling barbarians... it probably started up with someone going "here's an idea, halfling barbarians (dinosaurs may have been part of the concept right from the start, or added later)", but instead of looking at both and going "We'll have to create a halfling that doesn't have strength penalty and low movement speed and can use larger weapons, because that's what every barbarian does", Keith Baker (or whoever) looked at both and thought "how do I make them work together?". Halfling is a pretty bad race choice for a barbarian (melee anything, really) 3.5, but, funnily enough, barbarian is NOT bad choice for a halfling. Compared to standard "Greatsword, Power Attack, RAAAAAAARGH!" barbarian, halfling barbarian has much better attack with thrown weapons (on account of increased Dex, small size bonus to hit and halfling bonus with thrown weapons), better AC (small size + Dex), of course lower damage (Rage bonus offsets the lower Str, if not smaller weapon damage dice, and applies to thrown weapon too (wait a minute...)), lower mobility (but comparable to non-barbarians, and better than non-barbarian melee halflings), and lower carrying capacity. Giving them dinosaurs improves the carrying capacity and speed further, making Eberron's barbarian halflings decent mounted skirmishers who throw boomerangs at enemies while using dinosaur's mobility to stay away, and have Rage to improve their melee capabilities when something closes the distance... and that's exactly the archetype they use in the setting.

[Psyren]

And in my mind, that makes no sense at all. Because that's saying.

• BAD
  Racial Ability score: +2 dex
  while
• GOOD
  Ability: eleven dexterity : your dexterity modifier counts as 1 higher

After all, the second isn't a racial ability score ...

No, both of these are bad.

What I'm saying is

• "Goliaths are stronger then elves" thus they have inherently more carrying capacity = good
• "Goliaths are stronger then elves" thus they are inherently better in melee combat = bad

From a game mechanical point of view - it does not matter how "stronger" is implemented. Be it an ability score, or an ability.

I'm fine with "Goliaths can carry more". That's one specific application of strength that doesn't even matter at most tables past low levels. It doesn't translate necessarily to "Goliaths are stronger than elves." An Elf adventurer might still beat an Entangle that a Goliath adventurer will fail to, or rip a mind flayer's tentacles off their skull, or swim across the same raging river.

[Hurrashane]

See, that's the thing... to you, dwarf wizard is "burdened with +2 Str they'll never need", because you (apparently) think a dwarf wizard must be build the same way as every other wizard (except wearing armor, I guess), while to me, it raises a question "how do I play a wizard in a way that makes +2 Str and weapon and armor proficiencies useful while dealing with the fact enemies have 5% better chance to save against my spells". The possiblity of playing non-human was always there, but now it's less interesting, because I should just default to bog-standard wizard where being a dwarf make little to no difference. I DON'T have to, of course, but there's nothing to provoke thinking and to go with anything except no-brain "put ASI to Int, ignore weapon proficiencies, proceed as normal".

I suspect it was the case with 3.5 Eberron's famous halfling barbarians... it probably started up with someone going "here's an idea, halfling barbarians (dinosaurs may have been part of the concept right from the start, or added later)", but instead of looking at both and going "We'll have to create a halfling that doesn't have strength penalty and low movement speed and can use larger weapons, because that's what every barbarian does", Keith Baker (or whoever) looked at both and thought "how do I make them work together?". Halfling is a pretty bad race choice for a barbarian (melee anything, really) 3.5, but, funnily enough, barbarian is NOT bad choice for a halfling. Compared to standard "Greatsword, Power Attack, RAAAAAAARGH!" barbarian, halfling barbarian has much better attack with thrown weapons (on account of increased Dex, small size bonus to hit and halfling bonus with thrown weapons), better AC (small size + Dex), of course lower damage (Rage bonus offsets the lower Str, if not smaller weapon damage dice, and applies to thrown weapon too (wait a minute...)), lower mobility (but comparable to non-barbarians, and better than non-barbarian melee halflings), and lower carrying capacity. Giving them dinosaurs improves the carrying capacity and speed further, making Eberron's barbarian halflings decent mounted skirmishers who throw boomerangs at enemies while using dinosaur's mobility to stay away, and have Rage to improve their melee capabilities when something closes the distance... and that's exactly the archetype they use in the setting.

But then aren't you just really trading one standard for another? In my mind it's similar to prestige classes, some think they add more depth to the game while in my mind to qualify for one you're just following the steps and all of a specific prestige class will mechanically be the same.

With floating ASI you're still free to make a dwarf wizard with above average strength or a halfling barbarian that throws... But you now don't need to. You can build them however you want; to their classes strengths or against it. The eberron halfling works because it's a mechanical build that still works (save the dinosaurs, barbs had no means to guarantee obtaining one), there's likely a reason no 3.5 setting has Orc Wizards as a default because mechanically it just doesn't work well.

Like, sure there's a few mechanically viable options with fixed ASI, but with floating ones -all- options are on the table. Like an orc wizard evoker who recklessly blasts himself with spells or over channels them because he knows he doesn't die once per day. Or a 20 strength goblin fighter with PAM and Sentinel using hit and run techniques thanks to nimble escape. Neither would be as viable with fixed ASI or lower attribute caps.

[Psyren]

But then aren't you just really trading one standard for another? In my mind it's similar to prestige classes, some think they add more depth to the game while in my mind to qualify for one you're just following the steps and all of a specific prestige class will mechanically be the same.

With floating ASI you're still free to make a dwarf wizard with above average strength or a halfling barbarian that throws... But you now don't need to. You can build them however you want; to their classes strengths or against it. The eberron halfling works because it's a mechanical build that still works (save the dinosaurs, barbs had no means to guarantee obtaining one), there's likely a reason no 3.5 setting has Orc Wizards as a default because mechanically it just doesn't work well.

Like, sure there's a few mechanically viable options with fixed ASI, but with floating ones -all- options are on the table. Like an orc wizard evoker who recklessly blasts himself with spells or over channels them because he knows he doesn't die once per day. Or a 20 strength goblin fighter with PAM and Sentinel using hit and run techniques thanks to nimble escape. Neither would be as viable with fixed ASI or lower attribute caps.

Exactly this. Decoupling race/species from fixed attributes creates more meaningful options, not fewer.

This is of course the opposite of what I said, as Strangebloke already pointed out to you.

If you want to design a game where the world's strongest orc is stronger than the world's strongest halfling, I would have no objection.



It's the difference between "Only giants can be this tall, halflings can't," (a design choice I have no problem with) and "you can be a halfling just as tall as a giant, but if you do, you'll be underpowered." (a design choice I have a problem with).

If being as tall as a giant is not a valid flavor, you shouldn't be able to play it. If it is a valid flavor, you shouldn't be penalized for playing it. Flavor taxes are lame.



For any given 5e class, attributes are not of equal value. Points in your primary stat are worth more than your secondary stat, which are in turn worth more than points in your tertiary stat, which is worth more your quaternary, quinary, and senary stats.

This means that the racial modifiers don't balance out. If you get -2 to your class's primary stat, and +2 to a quaternary stat, then you've ended up with a net penalty for your racial modifiers choice, while that other guy in the same party got a net bonus.

This is extra clear when using point buy -- costs escalate as you raise a stat higher, so the +2 to a quaternary stat is only worth 2 point buy, but the -2 to a primary stat is worth more than that (and may even set you back an ASI, too).

Also this.

[JackPhoenix]

But then aren't you just really trading one standard for another? In my mind it's similar to prestige classes, some think they add more depth to the game while in my mind to qualify for one you're just following the steps and all of a specific prestige class will mechanically be the same.

With floating ASI you're still free to make a dwarf wizard with above average strength or a halfling barbarian that throws... But you now don't need to. You can build them however you want; to their classes strengths or against it. The eberron halfling works because it's a mechanical build that still works (save the dinosaurs, barbs had no means to guarantee obtaining one), there's likely a reason no 3.5 setting has Orc Wizards as a default because mechanically it just doesn't work well.

That's my point... you CAN make dwarf wizard with above average strength... but why would you, and more importantly, why would you even think about that idea, especially as someone less experienced with the system? With floating ASI, people will just default to running the same exactly build, just switching race around. No inspiration.

Like, sure there's a few mechanically viable options with fixed ASI, but with floating ones -all- options are on the table. Like an orc wizard evoker who recklessly blasts himself with spells or over channels them because he knows he doesn't die once per day. Or a 20 strength goblin fighter with PAM and Sentinel using hit and run techniques thanks to nimble escape. Neither would be as viable with fixed ASI or lower attribute caps.

All right, this crap again. Repeat after me: Not optimized is NOT the same thing as not viable. All of that is perfectly viable, even with fixed ASI. Of course, floating ASI make this issue worse, because it promotes the (false) idea that you MUST have ASI in the right place for the character to be viable at all.

[strangebloke]

I think strength works pretty well as a "pound-for-pound" strength.

Think of it this way. The requirement for plate is 15 strength. It's obvious that a halfling can wear plate without issue, so (also obviously) they need to be able to have 15 strength without paying a premium.

The weight of plate scales with the size of the creature, so a goliath doesn't really have a particular advantage wearing plate compared to anyone else.

Similarly, if you scaled weapon damage dice more harshly (or increased the power of martial weapons) you could easily create a situation where the size and power of something like a goliath barbarian is driven by their weapon damage dice.

I'll note that features like GWM already do this to a degree, and this is actually a notable change from 3.5 where weapon size/type barely mattered.

The thing is, I really think the "goliath vs. halfling" comparison is kind of a red herring. It's by far the largest objective disparity between two races in the game, and 99% of the racial ability mods were way more tenuous than that.

Like people will say "SPECIES should have seperate ability mods to make them more distinct" but the vast majority of race options literally are just races. All the different sorts of elves, dwarves, tieflings, aasimar, gith, etc. are all different races of the same species. So even if there should be species ability mods (and I don't think you should) you'd still have way more floating bonuses than you currently see.

[Rukelnikov]

I think strength works pretty well as a "pound-for-pound" strength.

Think of it this way. The requirement for plate is 15 strength. It's obvious that a halfling can wear plate without issue, so (also obviously) they need to be able to have 15 strength without paying a premium.

The weight of plate scales with the size of the creature, so a goliath doesn't really have a particular advantage wearing plate compared to anyone else.

Similarly, if you scaled weapon damage dice more harshly (or increased the power of martial weapons) you could easily create a situation where the size and power of something like a goliath barbarian is driven by their weapon damage dice.

I'll note that features like GWM already do this to a degree, and this is actually a notable change from 3.5 where weapon size/type barely mattered.

I agree with most you wrote, but the end is just wrong, there were multiple builds in 3.x whose main shtick was weilding dragon sized weapons, and the damage increases exponentially.

[strangebloke]

I agree with most you wrote, but the end is just wrong, there were multiple builds in 3.x whose main shtick was weilding dragon sized weapons, and the damage increases exponentially.

Yeah but I don't think that a few niche builds make the general statement untrue. Greater Mighty Wallop aside, weapon size is pretty much irrelevant.

If you're a barbarian in 3.5 wielding a two-handed maul and power attacking for +35 damage you don't really care whether your weapon is 2d6 or 3d6.

[Hurrashane]

That's my point... you CAN make dwarf wizard with above average strength... but why would you, and more importantly, why would you even think about that idea, especially as someone less experienced with the system? With floating ASI, people will just default to running the same exactly build, just switching race around. No inspiration.



All right, this crap again. Repeat after me: Not optimized is NOT the same thing as not viable. All of that is perfectly viable, even with fixed ASI. Of course, floating ASI make this issue worse, because it promotes the (false) idea that you MUST have ASI in the right place for the character to be viable at all.

Then for the first point I'd ask why would someone less experienced in the system even make a Dwarf Wizard with fixed ASI? They'd see that the class requires Int and then think that something like an elf would make a better wizard and just play that. There's no problem with a less experienced player being able to pick the race they want and the class they want to play and then maximizing what the books claim is important, and they'll likely have a better time playing a character that excels in the role than one that is just ok or struggles. Once a player has some system mastery is when experimental builds start happening. I doubt any new player will read the description of the wizard then try and make a dwarf who melees out of it on their first go.

I believe I said not as viable not that it's not viable. In 5e an 8 int wizard is viable with the right build. A +2 mod may be alright, you'll get by... But you'll do better with a +3. I recently played a game with someone who's character had no higher mod than a +2, they didn't have fun at all with that character. They felt that they barely hit anything, their spells rarely landed, and that their bonuses to skills were underwhelming. Now it could have just been bad luck, but the player felt it was because they had no mod higher than a +2. And that's compounded by being in a party with other characters who have +3/4 in their main stat. The barbarian I was playing had the same charisma mod as this player's bard.

[Rukelnikov]

Yeah but I don't think that a few niche builds make the general statement untrue. Greater Mighty Wallop aside, weapon size is pretty much irrelevant.

If you're a barbarian in 3.5 wielding a two-handed maul and power attacking for +35 damage you don't really care whether your weapon is 2d6 or 3d6.

Oh ok, yeah, compared to the flat extra damage, dice tended to become almost irrelevant for the majority of combatants. But wielding oversized weapons was still a thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Then for the first point I'd ask why would someone less experienced in the system even make a Dwarf Wizard with fixed ASI? They'd see that the class requires Int and then think that something like an elf would make a better wizard and just play that. There's no problem with a less experienced player being able to pick the race they want and the class they want to play and then maximizing what the books claim is important, and they'll likely have a better time playing a character that excels in the role than one that is just ok or struggles. Once a player has some system mastery is when experimental builds start happening. I doubt any new player will read the description of the wizard then try and make a dwarf who melees out of it on their first go.

I believe I said not as viable not that it's not viable. In 5e an 8 int wizard is viable with the right build. A +2 mod may be alright, you'll get by... But you'll do better with a +3. I recently played a game with someone who's character had no higher mod than a +2, they didn't have fun at all with that character. They felt that they barely hit anything, their spells rarely landed, and that their bonuses to skills were underwhelming. Now it could have just been bad luck, but the player felt it was because they had no mod higher than a +2. And that's compounded by being in a party with other characters who have +3/4 in their main stat. The barbarian I was playing had the same charisma mod as this player's bard.

I've had
* tiefling druids
* dragonborn druids
* high elf strength paladins
* and every other sort of combination.
It worked fine.

ASIs don't really matter nearly as much as optimizers think. And generally new players are the most open to experimentation because they haven't been brainwashed into "only the numbers matter."

[Witty Username]

All right, this crap again. Repeat after me: Not optimized is NOT the same thing as not viable. All of that is perfectly viable, even with fixed ASI. Of course, floating ASI make this issue worse, because it promotes the (false) idea that you MUST have ASI in the right place for the character to be viable at all.

Sometimes, wizard for example is the easiest to make viable with low Int, as spells don't always require attack rolls or saves to be effective.
Compare to say monk, a monk that has no stats above 15 will be below curve in every aspect of the game, with little recourse to cover their non-traditional weaknesses.
Further, 14-15 isn't the floor, 12-13 can be what your working with with a non-traditional race, if one is using rolled stats, I am personally comfortable with using a traditional race when I roll low and non-traditional when I roll high but that won't be true for everyone.

Also, fixed ASIs didn't much help at all, with the most popular race being variant human, it just defined other races as weaker than human, even if they were technically viable.

And all these things are still viable, if you want to be a half-orc wizard with an Int of 8 that casts quarterstaff, you can do that.

[Just to Browse]

ASIs don't really matter nearly as much as optimizers think. And generally new players are the most open to experimentation because they haven't been brainwashed into "only the numbers matter."

I've had half-elf rangers, gnome druids, fire genasi rogues, half-orc monks, and several others. They didn't work well at all. All of the players regularly found themselves feeling underwhelming relative to their companions with stats in proper bindings. I had to hand out custom magic items and feats to make up the difference in multiple cases. And all of my listed examples were new players, not brainwashed bog-standard [insert additional pejoratives here] optimizers.

[Rukelnikov]

ASIs don't really matter nearly as much as optimizers think. And generally new players are the most open to experimentation because they haven't been brainwashed into "only the numbers matter."

I think its the other way round, optimizers probably know how much they are worth, but people reading guides don't, because they didn't go thru the process of trying different combinations of a build to note which returned the better results. They understand that its what will have the most impact on the mathematical formulae used to calc DPR, and thus see it as the end all be all.

My most played character in 5e was an Air Genasi Storm Sorcerer/Chain GOOLock, mostly having one concentration up and spamming EBs. He had 16 Cha levels 1 to 8, at 9 (Lock5/Sorc4) it went to 18, and to 20 at lvl 14 (Lock8/Sorc6), and he did fine.

[strangebloke]

That's my point... you CAN make dwarf wizard with above average strength... but why would you, and more importantly, why would you even think about that idea, especially as someone less experienced with the system? With floating ASI, people will just default to running the same exactly build, just switching race around. No inspiration.

All right, this crap again. Repeat after me: Not optimized is NOT the same thing as not viable. All of that is perfectly viable, even with fixed ASI. Of course, floating ASI make this issue worse, because it promotes the (false) idea that you MUST have ASI in the right place for the character to be viable at all.

Nobody thinks you need +2 to your main stat to be viable!

Depending on class, you can have an 8 in your main stat and be "viable!"

But if you're giving up a +1/+2 to your main stat, you are objectively going to be weaker in very measurable ways, and some classes (especially monk) REALLY suffer here. A monk giving up 1/4 of their already lackluster damage output is making a huge sacrifice for flavor. A half-orc monk is functionally three whole ASIs behind their Vhuman peer. Why do they need to do that? Because it satisfies the simulationist desires of random people who they don't play with?*

I've played a roll-for-stats tiefling paladin with 13 STR, 12 CON, and 15 CHA. It was 'fine'! But I was weaker than I could be, and the only reason I was okay with this is that as an experienced player I was going to be powerful anyway and I knew how to play around my weaknesses. A newer player is understandably going to be averse to making an intentionally weak character, and for good reason. If you're a newb at a table where the DM is legit trying to kill your PC, you cannot afford to give up basic baby's-first optimization guides.

*The ability mods themselves are effectively arbitrary and don't really mean anything anyway. You'll constantly see threads asking what the difference between strength and constitution is, or what the difference between wisdom and intelligence is. The game could pretty easily do away with ability scores entirely and lose little of value from a simulation perspective (indeed, I'd argue it'd get better)

[Rukelnikov]

Nobody thinks you need +2 to your main stat to be viable!

Depending on class, you can have an 8 in your main stat and be "viable!"

But if you're giving up a +1/+2 to your main stat, you are objectively going to be weaker in very measurable ways, and some classes (especially monk) REALLY suffer here. A monk giving up 1/4 of their already lackluster damage output is making a huge sacrifice for flavor. A half-orc monk is functionally three whole ASIs behind their Vhuman peer. Why do they need to do that? Because it satisfies the simulationist desires of random people who they don't play with?*

I've played a roll-for-stats tiefling paladin with 13 STR, 12 CON, and 15 CHA. It was 'fine'! But I was weaker than I could be, and the only reason I was okay with this is that as an experienced player I was going to be powerful anyway and I knew how to play around my weaknesses. A newer player is understandably going to be averse to making an intentionally weak character, and for good reason. If you're a newb at a table where the DM is legit trying to kill your PC, you cannot afford to give up basic baby's-first optimization guides.

*The ability mods themselves are effectively arbitrary and don't really mean anything anyway. You'll constantly see threads asking what the difference between strength and constitution is, or what the difference between wisdom and intelligence is. The game could pretty easily do away with ability scores entirely and lose little of value from a simulation perspective (indeed, I'd argue it'd get better)

Because I want my PCs to be Characters, not killing machines (albeit some may be), so being a Half-Orc Necro as a character MEANS having to deal with a lower main stat that you could otherwise have, and that itself is part of the Character, numbers and flavor tend to go hand in hand.

And, sure I could put the +2/+1 somewhere else, and then we are back to 3e where you have to self police yourself, and can't really do whatever the systme allows you, in order to have a character.

[strangebloke]

Because I want my PCs to be Characters, not killing machines (albeit some may be), so being a Half-Orc Necro as a character MEANS having to deal with a lower main stat that you could otherwise have, and that itself is part of the Character, numbers and flavor tend to go hand in hand.

And, sure I could put the +2/+1 somewhere else, and then we are back to 3e where you have to self police yourself, and can't really do whatever the systme allows you, in order to have a character.

LOL. You are currently arguing that you NEED the system to FORCE your orc to deal LESS DAMAGE and be LESS RESILIENT for the sake of FLAVOR.

How does that work out? Someone help me here.

[JNAProductions]

Because I want my PCs to be Characters, not killing machines (albeit some may be), so being a Half-Orc Necro as a character MEANS having to deal with a lower main stat that you could otherwise have, and that itself is part of the Character, numbers and flavor tend to go hand in hand.

And, sure I could put the +2/+1 somewhere else, and then we are back to 3e where you have to self police yourself, and can't really do whatever the systme allows you, in order to have a character.

Optimization and roleplaying are not opposites.

You can have a useless PC played with all the personality of a carrot; and you can have a powered to the nines PC who’s the most memorable character due to their personality and actions.

[Anymage]

Because I want my PCs to be Characters, not killing machines (albeit some may be), so being a Half-Orc Necro as a character MEANS having to deal with a lower main stat that you could otherwise have, and that itself is part of the Character, numbers and flavor tend to go hand in hand.

And, sure I could put the +2/+1 somewhere else, and then we are back to 3e where you have to self police yourself, and can't really do whatever the systme allows you, in order to have a character.

If we assume that half orcs are larger and have heartier builds than other races, I think it's fair to look askance at the half orc wizard who decides that strength is a safe dump stat. Ditto with the gnome fighter who thinks that it's safe to dump intelligence, or the elven paladin who decides to go heavy armor and dump dexterity. That does feel like just digging for the most useful racials. Forcing any of the above to sacrifice prime stat as opposed to "highest stat after the important ones" (keeping in mind that most very few characters leverage more than two or three stats) is a much bigger ask and makes them much less likely to be seen.

Spitballing an idea that just hit me while I was writing this, I wonder how bad an optional rule giving certain races stat minimums might be. The low end and implied medium are kept, while the top end doesn't feel as limited to only the right races.

[strangebloke]

If we assume that half orcs are larger and have heartier builds than other races, I think it's fair to look askance at the half orc wizard who decides that strength is a safe dump stat.

I mean, no? Not at all.

You can just be a runt. You're a half orc, you grew up with orcs, you had to fight for scraps at the orphanage and you always lost out to the bigger guys, meaning you often went hungry and ended up malnourished and small even compared to a human. Your interest in magic and your efforts to develop your mind flow out of a desire to compensate for your small stature.

like seriously I am begging you guys, exercise a bit of creativity here.