Source
r/dndnext•
Funkula

The case for removing racial ability scores and using an alternative system

Discussion

In my opinion, racial ability scores help only to create stereotypical characters, rather than unique or interesting ones. It's hard to encourage a player to go with their favorite character concept, while simultaneously and arbitrary punishing them with inferior stats compared to other options.

For example, take the humble gnome warlock; while it could be a great role-play opportunity, the poor thing is most likely going to be stuck at a +2 charisma modifier at level 1, which is completely inferior to a Tiefling or Half-Elf sorcerer who will most likely get to +4 charisma at level 4. And that's just charisma!

Telling players to "screw the racial scores! play what you want", and then myself rigidly sticking to those racial scores as laid out by the book seems hypocritical in a way. Your player instead is left to consider whether their backstory is worth taking the hit the their stats, and you aren't really offering any incentive for them to keep it. I can't be the only one who thinks so.

​

I've been using an alternative system at my table with great success, which works whether you use standard array or point buy:

​

For every race except Variant Humans and Mountain Dwarfs, just give characters +4 ASI points to spend wherever they want, to a maximum of 17. Yes, +4. Problem solved. All races still retain their racial features (fey ancestry, darkvision, etc), and any race is optimal for any class.

Expressed in point buy terms, give your players 35 points to spend, 8-13 cost 1 point each, 14-17 cost 2 points each.

​

Questions you might have for me:

​

1. What's wrong with doing it the normal way you big baby?

​

To get an idea of what I'm talking about, let's look at two different warlocks again as an example and prioritize Charisma, Constitution, and Dexterity in that order.

StrDexConIntWisCha
Simple Array81314101215
Gnome Warlock81414121215
Half-elf Warlock81415101217

It gets worse as you level up, as a lvl 4 Gnome at maximum can increase their charisma modifier to +3, and keep their constitution at +2. And a Half-Elf (or Scourge Aasimar or Tiefling Subtype) could get CON to +3 and CHA to +4. That's clearly not fair! As the DMG says, PC's are exceptional people, not every soldier is a fighter, and for a game about exceptional fantasy heroes, it seems counter intuitive to imagine that book-nerd half-orc wizard who neglected his fitness regimen will almost always be both stronger and less intelligent than an elf wizard.

​

2. Why not +2/+1 or just 3 points or some other combination?

​

Most because half elf would remain as the dominant power-gaming choice for sorcerers, paladins, warlocks, and bards.

​

3. What kind of stats does this produce with POINT BUY? Will they be balanced?

​

In no particular order,

17/17/15/8/8/8 is a viable combination with Dwarfs already. Besides, having +4/+4/+2 at level 4 is hardly game-breaking if you have 3 stats that are negative.

16/16/16/10/8/8 is perfectly possible with half elves at level 1.

Being able to put these stats in the attributes you want is the strength of this system, and so far I haven't found any issues with it. Hell, most of my players end up making jack-of-all-trades characters at first, then lament later that they should of specialized, at which point I point out that their stats would be even worse if we went with original racial scores and that dragonborn monks are a bad combination overall.

​

4. What kind of stats does this produce with ROLLING? Will they be balanced?

​

Keep in mind it's possible to roll an 18 with 4d6-1d6 or 3d6 anyway. But trying to balance randomness is self defeating. My way of doing it would be to give 3 ASI's instead of 4, I guess.

​

5. Why not Variant Humans or Mountain Dwarfs?

​

These are the only two races that seem to have a full passive Feat that would make this system unbalanced in their favor, so they get their ability scores as usual.

For variant Humans, the question then becomes "should I trade weaker up-front stats and the lack of darkvision for a feat of my choice?". Even with this system, human remains a popular option at my table.

For mountain Dwarfs, the question becomes "is having +2 str and +2 con worth the armor proficiency without feats or multiclassing?" You know, like usual.

​

6. What about regular humans?

​

Your call. I've never seen one played, and I'm not sure if giving them more ASI's with the ceiling remaining at 17 at the cost of having no racial features, no feats, and no darkvision is balanced or not.

​

7. What if I don't think Gnomes should be as strong as Goliaths?

​

Far be it from me to tell you what kind of fantasy you should have in your fantasy game. If you don't like it, don't allow it. I just think making a Gnome Barbarian as mechanically viable as a Goliath barbarian is more fun for my players. DnD is a game of mechanics anyway, and your Goliath might just fail a strength check to knock down a door by rolling a 2, but your old white-haired human wizard with a -2 to str can roll a natural 20 on the same door and succeed. So if you can make that silliness immersive, you can make the forest gnome Twiggypie the Teeth Gnasher immersive too.

​

Thoughts?

Posted Jan 15, 2019, 3:23 AM UTC · edited

1534
Trompdoy•

You didn't need an essay to convince me. Racial stat bonuses are stupid. If a race is strong, that can be conveyed through features like Powerful Build. It doesn't need to be displayed through con or str. All racials stats serve to do is narrow functional race/class combinations, or at the very least discourages them. A lot of people will try to argue that +2 to a stat isn't a big deal, but relative to the system of 5e, it is a pretty big deal. And if it's not a big deal, then why defend marrying stats to race?

The way I see it, PCs are typically always an exception. They are remarkable for some reason, and it's because they're special in some way. I think the way in which they're special should be for the player to decide. Letting players choose a race they want to play because they like the race, and don't feel pigeon holed into getting efficient bonuses, is a much better approach imo.

16
David4194dPaladin•

It’s very unlikely the gnome will be as strong as the Goliath due to the Goliath’s race feature that makes it count as a size category larger for actually lifting and dragging things. They’ll have the same strength score but now it’s now about the Goliath having something innate that means with the same strength it can lift more.

Which I think is something that adds points in favor of your system. The race features still make a Goliath seem like the more natural fit for a barbarian but its in a way that’s more about flavor/will at best only give a slight edge versus the person who didn’t perfectly optimize which I like.

I think I did a crap job of getting to the point but I do like and there is probably a shorter version of what I said. I’ll probably even suggest to our dm. We’ve trying small changes and this seems like 1 worth trying.

13
MelissaJuiceOnion Knight•

I much prefer racial bonuses as they are.

10
Mighty_K•

The difference between a 14 and a 16 in your main stat is +1. That only makes a difference every 20th roll on average. You roll a 16, but needed a 17 for example.

If you only count "attack rolls" and make one per round and assume 5 rounds per combat, you only notice one more failed attacks every 4th combat encounter. That's really is not that important.

4
Funvee•

You're forgetting damage, make that 5 extra damage per fight, get up to level 5 and it's more likely to be 10 potential damage and a miss every second encounter, add on things like superiority dive which are wasted on a miss and that +1 can feel even bigger.

8
Trompdoy•

a 5% increased chance to have your spells take effect and a 5% increased chance to hit is something that people often underestimate far too much, not including damage bonuses, skill checks and saves where all of these things add up quickly and make a difference.

2
rmch99(I play CG lesbian spellblades)•

I kind of dislike the nerf here to Half-Elves, they're probably too strong as-is, but making them just not have additional features makes them basically worse than Elves, I'd give them 1-2 other bonuses were I to do this.

3
Ratharyn•

They get dark vision and fey ancestry still and 2 skill proficiency. Half elves are so strong you could make them anything and not suffer for it.

2
Foxiferous•

We just run that you can use the race ASI's if you want.

Or any race can run the variant human - 2x +1, 1 skill and 1 feat.
That's on top of normal racial abilities which can make for some stronger characters, so it's not going to be for every table.
But it does make for a lot more interesting and unique characters.
We currently have a human ranger using strength melee. A dragonborn fighter using ranged dex. A gnome illusionist and a Changeling dex rogue.
Which feels like a pretty varied party.

​

You could totes powergame it if you wanted, but then, if you're at the full powergaming table, you wouldn't be worried about characters not being unique in the first place.

2
Trompdoy•

The worry about powergaming is baseless though. Yeah, if you rolled a barbarian you could have +2 str +1 con every time and therefore you'd be powergaming... or you could just roll a goliath or a half-orc or any of the other several races that give +2/1 between STR and CON and you're being just as efficient.. so therefore powergaming? Or you could just make variant human literally anything and you're powergaming.

I don't think choosing a race should be a mechanical decision. It should be a preference of theme and character. The stat bonuses make it far too much of a mechanical decision or sacrifice.

3
Foxiferous•

The powergaming more comes from the fact you get all the other racial features and a feat as well.

Variant High-elf > Cantrip + feat etc.

It can be abused if someone wants to. So I wouldn't recommend to absolutely every group.

But I definitely would recommend it for most groups as an easy way to open up a lot of races.

1
Trompdoy•

it can be abused, sure, but not to an extent where any race/stat combination becomes broken. WotC never designs races with bad stats on purpose, they just pick whatever stat they think is thematically appropriate for the race and more often just end up creating bad races because of it. The gith are a good example, so are tortles, and many more.

No matter what you might change the +2/1 to on any given race, i don't think there are any that will ever be that much better than plain old variant human anyway. It's not really a major factor of concern for me

1
mrbchristensen•

I do something similar. It allows for more freedom for players to create characters that fully represent their vision.

I started doing this because I think about humans. There is a huge variety of strengths and what people would have statwise. I imagine other races would have the same variability. You could be that orc that couldn't quite make it as a warrior in your family, but you able to come up creative ways to solve problems. You find yourself looking for books that you find interesting. Soon find yourself looking for books of spells. Or you are the world's strongest gnome, boasting of your great feats to all that would hear. Unlikely for you is that no one believes you until you give them a swift punch to the jugular.

2†
cthulhu_on_my_lawn•

Eh. Racial stat bonuses are not bad. Most half-orcs are fighters or barbarians. Most gnomes are wizards. You can make a half-orc wizard and it's only slightly suboptimal. But if it's all equal the expectations are baseless and it's like "oh look, another gnome barbarian".

2
Funkyjob89•

While i agree thats its annoying, but giving them racial asi establishes the world in which you live in. For the players there needs to be some solid expectation of what a race is and what they would be like. If a High elf is just as likely to be a barbarian as a Goliath, then what makes them different from Goliath? how does their fantastical and intellectual world translate to the in the mechanics of gameplay. I see your point, but if one race is just as likely to be a class as any other than race just dosent matter anymore.

​

And why would a Orc wizard be just as effective as a gnome wizard at level 1? Sure they can make up for lost time and eventually be equal, but a gnome just has a better knack for it because it is inherent in their race.

​

If you get rid of Racial Asi then you ruin they cultural aspects of the Races imo.

2
argentumArbiter•

A high elf is different from a goliath because a goliath can lift and carry larger things, while an elf has fey ancestry and magic.

2
Funkyjob89•

Ok but how much does that effect gameplay? I honestly never seen anyone use the "powerful build" trait. Them being able to carry more indicates nothing to me about what the culture values and what is important to them and on top of that how they would fight.

​

If you get rid of racial asi then everyone just might as well be human.

​

and you skipped one of my questions. why should an orc be as good a wizard at level one as a gnome?

1
NannrzRedmage•

and you skipped one of my questions. why should an orc be as good a wizard at level one as a gnome?

Why wouldn't they be. Assuming the same amount of study and what not and the same propensity toward magic no reason why an orc mage shouldn't be every bit as capable as a gnome mage. Why is it that there are no smart orcs? Genetic diversity is a thing that exists. Maybe that orc is an outcast, or maybe it's revered for it's magic but either way it's a point of interest due to it being a unique trait amongst orcs rather than just same old dumb as mud orc barbarian.

3
Funkyjob89•

Because there culture does not foster that. im not saying it cant happen, just that its more unlikely, which is exactly what they do. I mean yeah genetic diversity exists you can put your ability scores where ever you want, but why would everyone be equally capable at everything? it just dosent make sense.

1
Altrus_the_Bold•

I've built an entire character around Powerful Build, and it might have been the most fun characters I've ever made.

Level 6 Bear Barbarian Goliath. He could just walk in and throw 4 unconscious teammates ((weighing combined less than 1000lbs)) on his back and book it out of a situation that went wrong. Because his lifting capacity was above 1 ton, most large obstacles, where not a problem. Archer problem? No problem, I've been carrying this large door I ripped off its hinges, we'll just hide behind it!

The real fun started when we came across an Immovable Rod. Fun fact an Immovable Rod doesn't move unless 8000 lbs of force is applied to it. The combo of PB+Bear+Block and Tackle makes my lifting ability just at 8000 lbs; most doors became none issues.

2
Trompdoy•

players roll characters in an entirely unique way - they are meant to be an exception, versatile and unique. there are stat blocks for all sorts of creatures including elves, gnomes, goblins etc. that represent what the typical member of that race looks like already and more race/class NPC combinations could be added as monster stat blocks to the 5e bestiary to further illustrate these points if they're a thing that matters to you.

1
Altrus_the_Bold•

Thoughts about Orc and Kobold which have negative stat bonuses?

2
ArthritisCandildoranger 4 lyfe•

Why not leave traits to Race and ASI's to background? It really makes more sense that you have a +2 in strength and +1 in Constitution after you came back from a grueling war, or have an Int of +2 after studying for years on end. Your race shouldn't dictate anything more than genetics (racial traits). Sure if you lived in their society as normal you could take the normal ASI but if I'm a casanova spending my early days in noble society I'd be damned if I didn't have +2 Cha and +1 Int/wisdom. And if completely switching them over to backgrounds doesn't float your boat, how about +1 racial +2 background or something along those lines? I'm mostly thinking theoretically as I haven't gone so far as to test any of this but I feel like it'd make creating an optimal build for a character idea a lot easier and open up the possibility for making the character you want without it being as mechanically impairing.

2
CbiilyyDM•

I love it.

I have been trying to come up with a way to do this for months and this is perfect. I thought about basically giving every race the option to take the variant human stat increase instead of their standard race one. E.g. if say you wanted to play a half-orc wizard you’d usually be rather underpowered but if you took the “variant half-orc” instead of taking +2 strength and +1 Constitution, you would take +1 to any two starts of your choice, 1 skill, and 1 feat. But maybe say with that half-orc example you wouldn’t get the relentless endurance, but I’d say you can take it instead of the feat?

But this is a beautiful way of making really simple and letting races keep its individuality, with their features, but not tieing it to a stereotype.

Some people in comments think that it should be harder for say a gnome to train his strength up to 20 than a half-orc, due to genetics and/or cultures. And I agree with them... for commoners. But PCs are not commoners, they are the exception to the rule. they are heroes or at least extraordinary people. This system isn't for everyone, but I think it's fantastic for the people who want to make unique characters and focus on what makes them special or different, without the disadvantage of lower stats simply because that's what the example in the book says.

2
ulfirepudding•

I love the random advancement tables for race and class found here: http://jrients.blogspot.com/2017/07/or-get-them-all-together.html

I like using it instead of pluses to certain stats.

1
IplayDnd4days•

If you wanted to do this might try, letting the player pick their +2 to a stat and u roll for the one that gets their +1 so while they can still play what they want it adds a little randomness to it so that half orc might get 16 cha and 16 wis instead of his usual con and str bonus?

1
TheGamingMythos•

BIG PROBLEM: the system as presented is not balanced. EASY SOLUTION: dont give every race the same amount of stat bonuses but let them choose where to put the stat bonuses that they already have (for example,a DB +2str and +1cha can turn into a +2con and +1dex or a +1wis +1cha +1int) (not more than a +2 in any score though)

1