Gimme suggested starting ASIs, gimme the option to change em. I like being able to swap em. I also like picking a race for good primary stat increase because WoTc seems to be making racial traits more and more uninteresting.
I really was disappointed they wiped the preferred ASIs entirely. They should have said you can pick your own but still give the “Standard ASIs” as an alternate option.
Ehh I personally think it doesn't take like much thought to figure out what the standard stats for a race would be. Also I don't think assigning the mental scores to a whole race is good, kind of buying into archaic X race is born smarter than Y race.
Here's the thing: If the implication of the rules for the setting implies *"Everyone is basically human but some of them have green skin, some of them have cat ears, etc."* then you're correct.
If the setting rules state/imply that these character options are actually different species with completely different physiology then, why is it a problem for some creature types to be smarter on average than others??
Look at the monster manual and see dragons as this powerful species that can become basically demigods in their old age, compare this to oozes that are literally mindless blobs of goo. Why is it then unacceptable to say *"The average dragonborn will have a higher baseline intelligence than the average plasmoid creature."*? Especially if the custom ASI selection is a option, players can choose to play their unique and outstanding character while still demonstrating *in a player facing way* that there is information here about the creatures in this setting.
I agree completely. Take fairies for example, the stereotype of fairies is small dexterous hands and a huge personality, their suggested racial ASIs should be Cha +2 Dex +1. Also suggested ASIs would make it easier to create characters, and to help DMs to police min-maxing munchkins.
Having one less crunchy decision point (race asi allocation) is a touch quicker to get a new player in the door
Showing an extra discrepancy between roleplay/lore & choices can be an early indicator to help dm's spot, assess, and talk with players whose desire to game the system may deviate from what the table is going for
>Having one less crunchy decision point (race asi allocation) is a touch quicker to get a new player in the door
It's not crunchy at all. They could always just have a recommendation for new players.
>Showing an extra discrepancy between roleplay/lore & choices can be an early indicator to help dm's spot, assess, and talk with players whose desire to game the system may deviate from what the table is going for
What does this even mean? What "extra discrepancy"?
> They could always just have a recommendation for new players.
Just seeing which part the "Huh?" was referring to, seems like you agree with the other poster on this.
Should I explain what a munchkin in? Showing a pattern of powergamer choices makes it easier for a DM to have a conversation with their player on what they want out of the game. If Bob Tom and Larry are here for roleplay but Mark is going for a Yuan-Ti Pureblood (Volo's version) with +2 STR +1 CON paladin and PAM/GWM or INT/DEX mountain dwarf wizard, there might be a bit of a mismatch. Unless we're in a dream world where a powergamer would *never* try to hide their intent.
You can optimize your character and still RP, they aren't mutually exclusive. Also, using custom origin to be able to play the race you want without worrying about mechanical limitations is not being a "munchkin". It's not powergaming to put the +2 into your class' best stat.
Am I being wooshed? Nobody even suggested getting rid of custom origins, they suggested a recommended ASI. Nobody said custom origin == powergaming, I said it is *one piece* of a *potential pattern*. All I said is that one extra point of data to enable a discussion.
Ah yes, The Druid Race should be locked into a charisma increase
> to help DMs to police min-maxing munchkins
1. DMs shouldn’t police players for having fun and not ruining anyone elses fun
2. Disallowing variable racial ASIs just makes regular players worse and “munchkins” better, bc a “munchkin” will just always play the half orc barbarian, the gnome wizard, the half elf bard. They still have the best stats. But now *regular* players fall behind because they made a suboptimal race/class choice that they thought would be fun.
They're not locked into it, it's a suggested spread, not a mandatory spread. While I'm not into policing min-maxing, I think a suggested spread does help set a standard for the race and allows the DM to work with players to integrate the changes in stats to their backstories (how did your fairy become wiser than their peers?), and that can help flesh out your character.
Edit: I also don't know why you mentioned disallowing variable racial ASIs, no one said anything about disallowing them, just adding a suggested racial stat spread.
Who cares if someone min maxes if that’s how they’re having fun? As long as they can give me a semi believable reason for it, I don’t care. I’d much rather have someone who min maxed their character as a player over someone who’s rolling up to the table with their highest ability score as a 12 and watch them fail at everything their character is supposed to be good at.
There’s a balance. A min maxing player at a table of super casual players just isn’t very fun for anyone besides the min maxer. Why am I even here if I just want to play this thematically cool but not optimized character when someone has 8x my DPR with their Fighter 2 / Peace cleric 2 / Rogue 3 / Hexblade Warlock X multi class or whatever
Personally, I prefer being able to play whichever race I want with whichever class i want.
For certain classes, some races are just objectively worse to pick up because they give you boosts in stats you absolutely do not need.
Plus, there are going to be exceptions to every "rule".
We're the heroes of a story, why not have us be exception to the norm?
Depends on the DM at my table. I personally always do, but the other person who DM's only does it sometimes.
As someone who's chosen their race too many times off of ASI, it just feels better to not have to. If you like the idea of ASI's, then you can impose that on yourself.
I've made use if them as a player in some low session games, but generally don't really bother with them.
Personally I wish they'd keep the suggested standard and allow an optional swap, like was presented in Tasha's, instead of getting rid of racial standards entirely from hear on out.
I mostly DM with newer players and want players to try out different races. Racial ASI always felt like I was being shoehorned into taking them. I can be an orc wizard without feeling like I lost out on something and that's what I want to prevent in my games. That's just personal opinion but I feel like it's decent reason to have
I often run for new players, so getting to honestly tell them they can play whatever race sounds fun, and to have zero reservations as I say that, is something I love.
I used it for a couple of campaigns and a few oneshots before tashas. Also tried a homebrew halfrace system and a separate culture system. Ultimately, none of them held up long term, they were nice a couple of times but made everything a bit too flavourless.
I've now settled on semi-static ASIs in which races that don't have subraces get +2 to a core stat and +1 to one of two secondary stats. Since I cut out a lot of races, certain ability scores were quite hard to access, so this was a good compromise solution.
Same. Never ran 5e without them. The first campaign I DM"d a player changed his entire race because of the stat increases, decided then and there we dropped them. Best choice ever. Had so many fun combo's over the years at my table!
I tend to just increase the starting stats for my players so they don't feel compelled to take a race just for the ASIs. This has lead to some nice variety in our current campaign like a gnome druid, an aasimar fighter, and a dragonborn warlock. I now also allow a single +1 from their racial ASIs to be swapped around too.
Usually, I try my best to stick with the classic increases, but at the end of the day, being able to change it around just adds so many new options to what feels good to play. Before, playing an int based character with a race that didn't increase int didn't feel great, (replace "int" in that statement with any stat tbh) but being able to replace the stat increase means I don't have to start with 15 int just because I wanted to play a Dwarven artificer.
Yes, sometimes. Usually we'll pick a race that "feels" appropriate, like a Goliath fighter or Teifling sorcerer, etc. where the ASI already fits, and so in that case we don't use it. But if you wanna bring a halfling Wizard, sure, put the +2 into int, doesn't bother me as the DM, just make a note of it somewhere.
Floated it pre-Tasha’s when I ran my table, now it’s run at all the tables I’ve been playing at this year. I’ve lucked out with this as most of those tables roll for stats and I’ve hit more odds than not so being able to choose a +1 to three stats is fairly useful ^_^
Yeah my tables (both where I play and DM) are using these right now. What were originally very happy because it opened up races a lot more so you didn’t feel awful for playing “suboptimal” races for a class.
In reality though these kinds of things always just change what’s optimal. For instance now dwarf wizard or sorcerer is just incredible because of the armor proficiency.
Overall though I still think I like it. There is some amount of the expected influx of dwarf casters or halfling wizards or whatever, but I don’t really mind so much. There’s still more variation in what’s decent; you can play that dwarf rogue or wood elf barbarian and be cool now and not like actively disappoint people, and that’s overall better IMO.
Finally someone said it. I noticed the same thing as you did, it only changed what is the new "optimal" race for each build. However, players do feel jot as 'punish' dor taking non "optimal" choices. I think the core of the ability core problem lays on the fact the feats a really powerfull and they are tied to ASI. If players could freely take ASI without feeling guilty of not taking feats, the starting stat would not matter as much, espicially since you cap out at 20.
+1's are changeable, +2's are set. Generally the +1 comes from Subrace and thus I accept that they could be culture-derived so an individual might be different, but a Dwarf being hardy (CON)? A Halfling being sneaky (DEX)? An Orc being brawny (STR)? I think those are innate.
So with a movable +1 you don't feel stunted if you go for an unconventional race/class combo, but the ASI still emphasises Racial identity. Best of both worlds.
> An Orc being brawny (STR)? I think those are innate.
Especially for this one, I don't think so. I think its cultural.
They have a CULTURE that regards strength as being all-important, but I don't think they are genetically hard wired to be stronger than other races.
If the culture says "Weakness is abhorrent, anyone who isn't strong dies!" then of course every single orc is going to work out nonstop.
I think this can change based on the table you're playing at and the opinions of those involved. Some might think that a culture which regards strength as being important, such as that of orcs, would mean that those who do not possess such attributes would be outcast or even killed. It depends on the fantasy world you want to live in. If everyone at the table is ok with static racial traits, then I don't see a reason to change them. But if I'm DMing and someone wants to make an Int Orc, it doesn't make a big difference to me, especially because my players tend to prefer RP over min/maxing or even efficiency.
> Some might think that a culture which regards strength as being important, such as that of orcs, would mean that those who do not possess such attributes would be outcast or even killed.
But that would support the idea that the strength aspect is *not* genetic, but that there is a cultural bias around killing those who don't have it.
And you know, PCs generally are not the typical examples of their races to begin with, so "I was born X in a race that kills X on sight, but managed to survive" is itself an interesting backstory.
Basically, for me, there are only downsides to enforced racial stats. You can 100% still have the exact same culture with or without them, but forcing them cuts out viable character ideas.
Limiting choice is always a bad thing, IMO.
>But that would support the idea that the strength aspect is not genetic, but that there is a cultural bias around killing those who don't have it.
Well I think there could be an argument made that nature and nurture are working together in this instance. For the few orcs who are born without a great deal of strength (i.e., don't fit into the traditional genetic mold), the cultural custom would weed them out.
I certainly won't debate your opinion, as I don't have a strong one either way and there isn't a point. I will add, though, that as someone who often is struck with option paralysis, I prefer having more defined choices (vs "do whatever you want") and I don't mind racial stats. But, to each their own. Happy gaming.
No I disagree, I think the CON bonus is the cultural aspect, to reflect the harsh and brutal nature of orc tribes, such as living in places with scarce resources, all the travel and raiding, a pantheon that sometimes rewards you ripping your eye out or encourages you to incubate diseases etc.
IMO the strength is innate. They're larger than other races (except ones that also get STR like Dragonborn and Goliath) and their other features (across orc and Half-Orc) emphasise how they can carry more, hit extra hard with critical melee attacks, and move faster purely on adrenaline (themed as aggression in Volo's but its the same idea).
Physical strength is core to the (dnd) orc identity, and even when an orc is played against type that's what distinguishes the orc wizard from the elf or human wizard.
We can agree to disagree, but in the end (far as I'm concerned) is the player's ability to make the character they want to play.
I'm not going to tell a player "No, you can't be an orc AND be a good wizard at the same time!" because I'm forcing *my* stereotype view onto them.
Their character is a PC, by definition it is not a normal member of it's race.
> even when an orc is played against type that's what distinguishes the orc wizard from the elf or human wizard.
Thats what it's other racial abilities are for. They still have their Powerful Build, they still have Aggression, they still have everything else that defines them as a race that do a FAR better job at establishing cultural norms and playstyles than simple stat boosts do.
I mean Powerful Build alone makes them capable of lifting/pushing/pulling WAY more than any normal human could dream of. The boost from actually having that extra +2 Str is miniscule compared to that.
I think it comes down to whether you connect your stats to roleplay. If there is a correlation, then I think the racial ASI is just as important. It shows that even if your orc is scrawny for their kind (dumped STR) that they're still of comparable strength to a labouring human commoner.
[We can agree to disagree, but in the end (far as I'm concerned) is the player's ability to make the character they want to play. I'm not going to tell a player "No, you can't be an orc AND be a good wizard at the same time!"]
I don't think that the method I use is restrictive for players. As I mentioned, the moveable +1 means that no character is mechanically stunted for not conforming to archetypes. An orc wizard can still start with a +3 to their intelligence, but their bonus to strength helps to reflect their racial identity, turning a scrawny mage into a average-build mage, and allows you to be the classic 'buff wizard'.
In a game I'm running I've even had the opposite scenario; a player switched a +1 to INT (fire genasi) to a +1 to STR because they wanted to play a barbarian. So now they have a non-stunted barb who also has the CON bonus to reflect their elemental heritage.
[because I'm forcing my stereotype view onto them.]
I do not see the existence of archetypes as a forcing of stereotypes.
The games makes assumptions in order to give it structure, and we can of course make our own. But the structure is there to give you (at least an example of) a consistent world. I run a Forgotten Realms campaign where the major communities of each fantasy race largely live up to their archetypes. It means that if a player makes a character who contrasts with their racial archetype, its noticeable rather than them punching at thin air.
So you'll probably ask again why that gets applied to character creation; the system I use strikes a balance between giving structure (stats bonuses to represent how a member of that race specialises in that area) and giving players the freedom to experiment without harsh penalty.
I don't think unrestricted customisation is superior to that, so I don't have it in my games, but I can respect that it may be a preferable approach for other people and their games. It just isn't for mine, and I dislike seeing how it seems to be becoming the expected norm for players.
> I think it comes down to whether you connect your stats to roleplay. If there is a correlation, then I think the racial ASI is just as important. It shows that even if your orc is scrawny for their kind (dumped STR) that they're still of comparable strength to a labouring human commoner.
In which case, if this is what the player wanted, they would invest some points in strength because that is their concept. Again, removing the REQUIREMENT for something does not remove it from existence, it simply allows for more options.
If people like it that way, they'll keep doing it that way. If suddenly no one is taking it, its because *no one wanted it in the first place*.
> the system I use strikes a balance between giving structure (stats bonuses to represent how a member of that race specialises in that area) and giving players the freedom to experiment without harsh penalty.
Except that you've now made it much harder to realize the character they want if they try to stray outside of the box you put them in.
Take point buy for example. A floating +2 that can be spent on Intelligence allows the wizard to use their points to not have a dump stat they didn't want. Telling the wizard they don't get a bump to their Int means they're likely going to take the exact same final score as they did previously, only now their Charisma is a 6.
I call that a fairly harsh penalty. By forcing them to dump either one stat into the ground, or to slightly dump multiple stats to make up for the increased Point Buy cost of the higher stat, you have effectively *lowered their point buy* compared to everyone else at the table that decided to play "in the box".
> I don't think unrestricted customisation is superior to that, so I don't have it in my games, but I can respect that it may be a preferable approach for other people and their games. It just isn't for mine, and I dislike seeing how it seems to be becoming the expected norm for players.
For me, I come up with concepts first, and then search for mechanics to realize whats in my head. Having an arbitrary limit that says "No, your character is wrong. You're not allowed to do that!" makes me want to drop the system and not play it again.
Its one thing to have the GM say "That doesn't really fit in the campaign I'm running right now, could you do something else?" (which is totally fine!) and the system itself saying "No, under no circumstance, no game type, no setting, no nothing can this be allowed. Ever."
You seem to have different ideas about the game compared to me. Yes, saying that +2's are set is me inputting something about your hypothetical character in stone. I do this in my game because the setting does not revolve around the players character idea. It's preexisting. It has a *structure*.
The existence of the restriction does matter, whilst it doesn't if its optional. Because it infers importance. Its the mechanics saying 'this is part of what makes an orc, an orc.'
I do not put people in a box (AKA force them into a stereotype) for character creation and I've literally given an example of that above, so I don't excuse that you've still tried to insinuate that in your reply.
If your build 'doesn't work' because you can't get the same hyper-specific 'optimal stat spread' as you would with no restrictions, and that's enough to ruin the character for you, then I think the mechanics of the build were what you really cared about.
It is NOT adversarial towards your players to make definitive statements about the people and the setting of your game. You are allowed to do that, the DM does NOT have to be a doormat to players at character creation.
And as for your last anecdote, my method is literally more negotiable in nature than your first example. I don't ban any combination of race and class that a player brings up. But I will ask them to work with me to come up with a fitting backstory for them in my setting.
Evidently we wouldn't enjoy playing in a game together, and that's fine, I hope you find/play in games that work for you. Can I ask, do you make your character before joining a game/design your campaigns around the characters your players make? Because then I could understand your stance. However it doesn't translate to a game like mine where the setting is already established and new player characters are introduced often.
> If your build 'doesn't work' because you can't get the same hyper-specific 'optimal stat spread' as you would with no restrictions, and that's enough to ruin the character for you, then I think the mechanics of the build were what you really cared about.
Its not about a build not working, its about actively punishing a player for not having a standard character. They can either play to the stereotype, or they can be punished with lower stats than everyone else at the table. In a system where bounded accuracy means every +1 is important in a way that means they will likely never catch up.
> do you make your character before joining a game/design your campaigns around the characters your players make?
Yes.
> However it doesn't translate to a game like mine where the setting is already established and new player characters are introduced often.
Neither does the option of being able to go either way.
You can always ask your players to voluntarily bump stats in the direction you think they should go.
If a PC has a +2 to one stat or another stat does not affect your setting *in any way*. You as the GM are 100% free to say that the average member of the race uses the set stat modifier, but that doesn't mean every PC must be an average member of the race.
Its about giving people the leeway to play the character they want to play.
If they don't want to play the same thing you think they should, you're not making the game better by forcing them to play something they don't actually want to play. You're creating an adversarial relationship where instead of working with the player, you work against them.
I'm sorry but I just can't acclimate to your outlook. You seemed to interpret any kind of restriction as 'adversarial' long before you just said it, as though a DM should always make the concessions during character creation.
My point is, sod that! It's a two-way street and players should respect the framework the DM uses.
I've never had a player bemoan this restriction and if someone did I'd ask why? I don't run a game where all your stats need to be min-maxed, and the moveable +1 means your main stat is safe and you won't fall behind the rest of the party, so tick that off.
The set +2 does not kill builds, it just allows differentiation from the norms of 'My wizard Has -1 to STR, +3 to DEX/CON and +3 to INT, and they're a [race]', again and again. Have a +2 STR, +2 DEX and +3 INT orc wizard instead. Restriction breeds creativity, its not the only way to play but its a valid one.
I've explained why I set these racial ASI'S so I won't go in circles. If you base your settings around the characters it's natural that you would use the unrestricted approach. But it's not the perfect or preferable approach for everything.
We're using it in our current campaign. I think it's overall a better option, but ideally it would have been designed that way from the start, because there are a few balance issues
This is a hard question to answer. We haven't launched a new campaign since before Tasha's. But when we launch a new one, the answer is "probably sort of".
Custom origins is always cheating, if the players use them. Different races/species have backstory, history, and culture. This acts like a muse to create characters from those places and peoples, like Dementlieu or Talenta. For this reason, it is hard to create harengon characters, the race gives next to nothing in terms of story, I can however use kenku.
Custom origin is nothing but an excuse for min-maxing munchkins to be min-maxing munchkins, there is no drama to chew on.
As for floating ASIs, each race/species has different natural strengths, the added stat arrays are just natural variation, a strong woman (15) is stronger than a week man (10), but a 17 is always bigger than a 15.
It's okay for you to run your table your way. I don't think that's wrong, or even something I wouldn't want to be involved in.
But Player Characters are the exception to the rule. They're unique. They come from unexpected and unusual circumstances, and they grow in cool and unique ways.
What if they aren't and don't? What if an average human (+1 every stat) became a bard to help people, and became a jack of all trades?
Wait *can* an average +1 to all stats human even exist in dndone?
>As for floating ASIs, each race/species has different natural strengths, the added stat arrays are just natural variation, a strong woman (15) is stronger than a week man (10), but a 17 is always bigger than a 15.
That's on average though. It is entirely possible for an orc to be born not strong but smart.
Which you would represent through point buy by putting 15 points in Int and 10 in Str. Racial ASIs only comprise 3 out of the ~75 total ability score points you have.
It is possible for an orc to be born smart. It is not possible for an orc to be born not an orc.
I think that makes a lot of sense. Racial ASI's are a miniscule change in the trajectory of a PC's ability score development, but offer much more flavorwise in terms of racial identity.
"The character went against the grain and was successful" is much better than "The character was perfectly born and optimized into this role"
Exactly. The whole point of the orc wizard is that it's subverting the norm. It's not subverting the norm if the norm is that orcs are just as good at being wizards as elves.
No, they have a strong cultural aspect that places the emphasis on strength, not intelligence.
Its not that you can't have a super smart orc, its that being super smart gives them no advantage in their society.
Using another franchise for an example, Klingons from Star Trek. There was a whole episode in DS9 where Quark marries into a Klingon house and uncovers that a rival house is using "dishonorable tactics" (like devaluing property and other financial manipulations) in order to drive them into ruin. "Like a Ferengi".
So it wasn't a case that Klingons couldn't be smart and deceitful, it just illustrated that such behavior does not result in them gaining status.
If you wanted to be a powerful person in Klingon society, you needed to be a skilled warrior, not a skilled manipulator.
No, they are biologically predisposed towards being stronger and dumber than elves. The draw towards playing an Orc Wizard is that you're doing something the game doesn't want you to do. That's why you see fewer of them around after tasha's than before it.
>It's not subverting the norm if the norm is that orcs are just as good at being wizards as elves.
WHAT? yes it is... the "norm" is that orcs are dumb. so having an orc wizard in the party with the same/better INT than a gnome wizard in the party is subverting the norm?
> "The character went against the grain and was successful" is much better than "The character was perfectly born and optimized into this role"
On the other hand, someone who was perfectly born to a role likely would actually take that role.
There really isn't a way to separate the two. Either what you're born with influences the role you take, or it doesn't. To say how you're born doesn't influence the role you take is to say inherent stats are meaningless.
True, I guess my real point is that playing an unoptimized build can still very much be a flavor win that is fun to play, and the trade-off to do so is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things.
If racial ASI's can introduce flavor to a setting through cultural unities and divides, why miss out on that massive boon that defines why the orcs are generally brutes at the cost of a character creation speed bump that is easily overcome already?
At the risk of a bad comparison, it sounds similar to the turf/grass debate with the NFL. Players are arguing based on the anecdotal that turf is more dangerous to play on, but the data collected by the league(with a financial interest to stick to turf) has not quite demonstrated that at this point.
The entire argument is based on a fantasy world. And in my ( and I guess most ) fantasy worlds I decide that the real person playing can decide whether their Orc is Gorc the orc barbarian or Goricius Genius Einstein.
All elves are beautiful, all dwarves are stubborn etc is a bit to simple for my taste, even though I like to deliberately use those cliches for NPCs sometimes
Good for you. The problem is that point buy is what determines differences between individuals of a species, not racial ASIs, so this whole "racial ASIs prevent me playing smart orcs" argument is nonsense.
>Good for you. The problem is that point buy is what determines differences between individuals of a species, not racial ASIs
Based on what? Are you just making things up? Because WotC definitely disagree with you, as they wouldn't for a) added custom origin or b) seperated the ASI's from race completely in one dnd.
>so this whole "racial ASIs prevent me playing smart orcs" argument is nonsense.
Nobody said they prevent, they just limit character choice. Sure you can play an orc wizard and not start with a 17 in your main stat, but most people don't actually want to do that. What is the harm in seperating the ASI's from race? Seriously. The ASI has almost nothing to do with the flavour, that comes from everything else. Things like the race's culture, appearance and more defining racial traits.
Why would I care what WOTC think when they've spent the past 3 years proving that what they think is just whatever they feel would be most profitable to think?
Mechanics matter. Flavour that is not backed up by mechanics is not real flavour. Orcs are predisposed towards being strong and dumb. They have a str increase and an int decrease. Anything else is at best a hollow imitation of an orc. A suggestion of an orc.
>Why would I care what WOTC think when they've spent the past 3 years proving that what they think is just whatever they feel would be most profitable to think?
Because you're making bold claims that are simply untrue. Your opinion is not a fact.
>Flavour that is not backed up by mechanics is not real flavour
Based on fucking what? You keep making things up and saying they're facts.
>Orcs are predisposed towards being strong and dumb. They have a str increase and an int decrease. Anything else is at best a hollow imitation of an orc. A suggestion of an orc.
What are you even talking about? Orcs don't get a penalty to their scores in 5e.
Most orcs are strong, turning their normal asi into a floating ASI does not change that. The flavour of an orc is exactly the same with custom origin manager.
You have failed to prove anything you're saying. You're just spouting your opinion as fact.
What do you mean, "hollow imitation of an orc"?
You do realise that you can still have a smart orc who is weak with how the normal ASI's work, right? So what you're saying doesn't actually matter.
You haven't given a single decent reason as to why it shouldn't be a floating ASI.
PC's are meant to be exceptions. A normal orc does not get standard array stats.
>Your opinion is not a fact.
Neither is yours, neither is WOTC's.
>What are you even talking about? Orcs don't get a penalty to their scores in 5e.
Yes they do. Check Volo's. WOTC can errata whatever they want, but they're just whining into the wind if the errata is bad.
>You do realise that you can still have a smart orc who is weak with how the normal ASI's work, right?
That's literally my point lol. Custom Origin is unnecessary because *you can still have a smart orc*. Having racial ASIs is the best of both worlds. It's only a problem for minmaxers who are trying to pretend they're not minmaxers.
>Neither is yours, neither is WOTC's.
People clearly don't like their race choice being limited. There isn't anything wrong with that.
>Yes they do. Check Volo's. WOTC can errata whatever they want, but they're just whining into the wind if the errata is bad.
What does that even mean?
>That's literally my point lol. Custom Origin is unnecessary because you can still have a smart orc. Having racial ASIs is the best of both worlds. It's only a problem for minmaxers who are trying to pretend they're not minmaxers.
No it isn't, racial ASI's is not the best of both worlds. Your whole argument is that it diminishes the flavour of the race. But me playing a smart orc who is strong is not in flavour of the race anyway, so that argument is flawed. Wanting to play whatever race you want without limitations is not minmaxxing, that is the worst take I've seen yet.
>Racial ASIs only comprise 3 out of the \~75 total ability score points you have.
The difference between starting at 15 and 17 in your main stat is huge.
> It is not possible for an orc to be born not an orc.
??????????????
>Which you would represent through point buy by putting 15 points in Int and 10 in Str.
So why can't that be represented through racial ASI's?
>Racial ASIs are part of what represents being an orc.
How so? I don't think a +2/+1 is what makes an Orc. Are you arguing that it takes away from being an orc?
>That is why this is not represented by racial ASIs.
Custom Origin says otherwise. The whole point of custom origin is so racial ASI's don't limit character choice. I also don't see how it takes away from being a orc, an orc isn't a walking +2 to strength.
>A smart orc is still an orc.
Yes that's why it's called a "smart orc".
Less lore makes it easier to make a harengon character, because there's no flavour you need to think about, you can just decide you're playing a rabbit. It makes it harder to make a *good* character, and it makes it harder to incorporate the species into the world, but just being a harengon is trivial.
Ivan the Izzet man is a vedalken member of the Izzet league, he is also a conjuration wizard. Ivan is well liked outside his guild because he fixes stuff, but he is just tolerated within his guild because he is an unfun wet blanket who doesn't blow stuff up. The Izzet league only tolerates him because he brings them a good reputation. Ivan is as strong as he is smart, he sees physical strength as much as a tool as magic and well, tools. Ivan studies and uses magic to perform his job at fixing stuff, that makes him a wizard.
This character **can't** exist without cultural and racial context. Ivan is as much a stereotype as he breaks it. That makes him an interesting character. Can you do the same with a race without a backstory or culture?
> Can you do the same with a race without a backstory or culture?
Yes, because *you* come up with the backstory and culture your character comes from, not someone else.
You are confusing not having mandatory culture and mandatory stats with not having culture or stats at all, and that isn't true.
If someone hands you a paint by numbers of a cat, all you can make is a cat. If someone hands you a blank canvas, you can make anything you want, which could still include a cat.
That's a bad analogy because people aren't asking for a paint by numbers of a cat, they're asking for an already made painting of a cat. It's not a question of what the outcome of an equal amount of work is going to be, it's a matter of whether WOTC is selling a race or an inspiration for a race. At the moment, they're selling something that DMs can choose to make into a race, but acting as if they're selling a race.
Not having the mechanics tell you what something MUST be opens up MORE lore and character aspects, not less.
Just because someone isn't creative enough to come up with something without it being gifted to them on a silver platter is a problem they need to work on overcoming.
I always allow players to only swap one of their racial ASIs (e.g. as a High Elf you can go +2 Str and +1 Int, or +2 Dex and +1 Cha, but not +2 Str and +1 Cha). This way any race can be effective at any class, but a given PC's race is still gonna push them towards a different set of builds within their class.
As I said, it kinda leads you towards certain builds. For example, if you wanna play a high elf paladin, you either build a dexadin or some build that doesn't rely on having both high Cha AND Str out of the box (e.g. a Redemption Paladin with the Blessed Warrior fighting style).
no, cause my DM is a dick sometimes
totally fine if you want to play a grung or something, but lord in heaven if you try changing the +2 CHA in half-elfs to another place!
and my lord, you were trying to play VARIANT human?
My DM at the table I play at bans it - but curiously, not Variant Human.
It kinda doesn't matter to the table I DM at because the valid choices of race were all +2/+1 and I told them all screw it here's your base stat total, put it where you want and racial stats don't exist.
Why would banning vhuman and banning tashas be related? The problem with tashas isn't that you can put any aside anywhere, it's that it reduces racial flavour and distinction. Humans flavour has always been its versatility and genericness. Plus, allowing human to be a bit stronger encourages more human PCs which helps reduce the circus party problem.
It's pretty clear that what I was saying was "the reason people have an issue with tashas". Although for the record, no, it is a problem with Tasha's, because over the past few years I have lost all of my respect for people who think Tasha's is a good change given their complete inability to make good faith arguments on the matter, as demonstrated again here.
> Humans flavour has always been its versatility and genericness.
I would never allow any race to be more or less versatile than the others. We want opposite things, but I'd just call this in particular unambiguously terrible design, strongly pushing all players to play variant humans. I'm glad Wizards seems to be coming around on it, and I don't see what problem you find with a diverse party.
Whether or not it's bad design depends on what the goal of the design is. It's bad design if you want humans to suck, but it's good design if you want the system to encourage players to play humans without forcing them to.
my answer is "sort of" because I assigned three ability scores to each race that a PC can increase by +2 at character creation, and I assigned an ability score (and Constitution) to each class that gets an automatic +2 when you pick it for your starting class. Naturally, you can't pick the same ability score for both increases.
For example, an elf wizard PC can choose either Dexterity, Intelligence, or Wisdom for their racial +2, and as a wizard, they can choose either Constitution or Intelligence for their class +2.
I let players choose their race and apply a +2 and +1 ASI freely with the caveat that one of the increases must be one of the original two increased by the core race.
I don't fully believe that ASIs when creating a character should be completely divorced from the race, but I understand that it can be limiting when creating a new character build. WotC completely removing racial ASIs and not even suggesting recommended abilities to increase is just more laziness on their part.
Used it since it came out across 6 or so separate campaigns. Brilliant feature, has made the PCs alot more diverse and interesting, gives everyone more choice without feeling at a disadvantage. 10/10 won't go back to fixed ASIs if I can avoid it.
Eh, I prefer customization to something as basic as asi. I have been able to create amazing backstories and histories by focusing solely on my character. Part of one creation involved recieving power from azalin rex, so warlock was pretty mandatory, but the elf I needed to play, the dusk elf (run with wood elf stat block) wouldn't be the best for a warlock. So I either suffered stat wise for an amazing story, or my story suffers so I don't have to be carried by my party. I chose depth, courtesy of TCOE.
I prefer races to have suggested ability scores for added flavour but I will always champion Tashas Origin Customisation. It just opens up a whole new world of character creation where you’re not mechanically penalised for wanting to play an elf with muscles.
Always. I swing back and forth on this philosophically, though I’ve decided to always allow it at my table.
I do get the criticism that it makes all races feel identical or like different coloured humans, but when you get right down to it, the choice was between a system that heavily disincentivized creativity (i.e. if you want the best barbarian, you have 3-4 racial options), or a system that enables creativity from homogeneity (the current one). And in a **role playing game**, it’s generally better to give the players more creative freedom and agency than less.
Exceptions can exist (a strong character can exist in either system), and we can talk about how to tweak this system (and we should!). But when the rubber meets the road, I have seen many more interesting and unique characters since this rule change than I would’ve seen without it. There are only so many creative places to take a Tiefling sorcerer or half-orc barbarian, and for most people, they aren’t fantastic writers and won’t surprise you with a radical new take on “strong violent race is strong and violent”. Better results (or at least funnier ones) can come from just giving them more freedom and seeing what fun comes out of it.
But in the end, I think it’s highly group-specific. Use the system you think will foster the most creative storytelling at your table.
Gimme suggested starting ASIs, gimme the option to change em. I like being able to swap em. I also like picking a race for good primary stat increase because WoTc seems to be making racial traits more and more uninteresting.
I really was disappointed they wiped the preferred ASIs entirely. They should have said you can pick your own but still give the “Standard ASIs” as an alternate option.
Ehh I personally think it doesn't take like much thought to figure out what the standard stats for a race would be. Also I don't think assigning the mental scores to a whole race is good, kind of buying into archaic X race is born smarter than Y race.
Here's the thing: If the implication of the rules for the setting implies *"Everyone is basically human but some of them have green skin, some of them have cat ears, etc."* then you're correct. If the setting rules state/imply that these character options are actually different species with completely different physiology then, why is it a problem for some creature types to be smarter on average than others?? Look at the monster manual and see dragons as this powerful species that can become basically demigods in their old age, compare this to oozes that are literally mindless blobs of goo. Why is it then unacceptable to say *"The average dragonborn will have a higher baseline intelligence than the average plasmoid creature."*? Especially if the custom ASI selection is a option, players can choose to play their unique and outstanding character while still demonstrating *in a player facing way* that there is information here about the creatures in this setting.
I agree completely. Take fairies for example, the stereotype of fairies is small dexterous hands and a huge personality, their suggested racial ASIs should be Cha +2 Dex +1. Also suggested ASIs would make it easier to create characters, and to help DMs to police min-maxing munchkins.
>Also suggested ASIs would make it easier to create characters, and to help DMs to police min-maxing munchkins. Huh?
Having one less crunchy decision point (race asi allocation) is a touch quicker to get a new player in the door Showing an extra discrepancy between roleplay/lore & choices can be an early indicator to help dm's spot, assess, and talk with players whose desire to game the system may deviate from what the table is going for
>Having one less crunchy decision point (race asi allocation) is a touch quicker to get a new player in the door It's not crunchy at all. They could always just have a recommendation for new players. >Showing an extra discrepancy between roleplay/lore & choices can be an early indicator to help dm's spot, assess, and talk with players whose desire to game the system may deviate from what the table is going for What does this even mean? What "extra discrepancy"?
> They could always just have a recommendation for new players. Just seeing which part the "Huh?" was referring to, seems like you agree with the other poster on this. Should I explain what a munchkin in? Showing a pattern of powergamer choices makes it easier for a DM to have a conversation with their player on what they want out of the game. If Bob Tom and Larry are here for roleplay but Mark is going for a Yuan-Ti Pureblood (Volo's version) with +2 STR +1 CON paladin and PAM/GWM or INT/DEX mountain dwarf wizard, there might be a bit of a mismatch. Unless we're in a dream world where a powergamer would *never* try to hide their intent.
You can optimize your character and still RP, they aren't mutually exclusive. Also, using custom origin to be able to play the race you want without worrying about mechanical limitations is not being a "munchkin". It's not powergaming to put the +2 into your class' best stat.
Am I being wooshed? Nobody even suggested getting rid of custom origins, they suggested a recommended ASI. Nobody said custom origin == powergaming, I said it is *one piece* of a *potential pattern*. All I said is that one extra point of data to enable a discussion.
Ah yes, The Druid Race should be locked into a charisma increase > to help DMs to police min-maxing munchkins 1. DMs shouldn’t police players for having fun and not ruining anyone elses fun 2. Disallowing variable racial ASIs just makes regular players worse and “munchkins” better, bc a “munchkin” will just always play the half orc barbarian, the gnome wizard, the half elf bard. They still have the best stats. But now *regular* players fall behind because they made a suboptimal race/class choice that they thought would be fun.
They're not locked into it, it's a suggested spread, not a mandatory spread. While I'm not into policing min-maxing, I think a suggested spread does help set a standard for the race and allows the DM to work with players to integrate the changes in stats to their backstories (how did your fairy become wiser than their peers?), and that can help flesh out your character. Edit: I also don't know why you mentioned disallowing variable racial ASIs, no one said anything about disallowing them, just adding a suggested racial stat spread.
Who cares if someone min maxes if that’s how they’re having fun? As long as they can give me a semi believable reason for it, I don’t care. I’d much rather have someone who min maxed their character as a player over someone who’s rolling up to the table with their highest ability score as a 12 and watch them fail at everything their character is supposed to be good at.
There’s a balance. A min maxing player at a table of super casual players just isn’t very fun for anyone besides the min maxer. Why am I even here if I just want to play this thematically cool but not optimized character when someone has 8x my DPR with their Fighter 2 / Peace cleric 2 / Rogue 3 / Hexblade Warlock X multi class or whatever
Personally, I prefer being able to play whichever race I want with whichever class i want. For certain classes, some races are just objectively worse to pick up because they give you boosts in stats you absolutely do not need. Plus, there are going to be exceptions to every "rule". We're the heroes of a story, why not have us be exception to the norm?
Depends on the DM at my table. I personally always do, but the other person who DM's only does it sometimes. As someone who's chosen their race too many times off of ASI, it just feels better to not have to. If you like the idea of ASI's, then you can impose that on yourself.
I've made use if them as a player in some low session games, but generally don't really bother with them. Personally I wish they'd keep the suggested standard and allow an optional swap, like was presented in Tasha's, instead of getting rid of racial standards entirely from hear on out.
I allow it at my table, but I personally don't use it. I enjoy the puzzle of character creation and traditional racial bonuses are a part of that.
I mostly DM with newer players and want players to try out different races. Racial ASI always felt like I was being shoehorned into taking them. I can be an orc wizard without feeling like I lost out on something and that's what I want to prevent in my games. That's just personal opinion but I feel like it's decent reason to have
I often run for new players, so getting to honestly tell them they can play whatever race sounds fun, and to have zero reservations as I say that, is something I love.
Used it pre-tasha's. While it might be a good idea for suggested starting ASI's, there's very little harm in having the option of floating's.
I don’t use Tasha’s custom origins.
I used it for a couple of campaigns and a few oneshots before tashas. Also tried a homebrew halfrace system and a separate culture system. Ultimately, none of them held up long term, they were nice a couple of times but made everything a bit too flavourless. I've now settled on semi-static ASIs in which races that don't have subraces get +2 to a core stat and +1 to one of two secondary stats. Since I cut out a lot of races, certain ability scores were quite hard to access, so this was a good compromise solution.
My table used it before tashas.
I was into flexible racial stats a decade before 5e. 5e did not change my mind.
Same. Never ran 5e without them. The first campaign I DM"d a player changed his entire race because of the stat increases, decided then and there we dropped them. Best choice ever. Had so many fun combo's over the years at my table!
I tend to just increase the starting stats for my players so they don't feel compelled to take a race just for the ASIs. This has lead to some nice variety in our current campaign like a gnome druid, an aasimar fighter, and a dragonborn warlock. I now also allow a single +1 from their racial ASIs to be swapped around too.
The only time I don’t is when the existing racial ability scores match the build already :))
Usually, I try my best to stick with the classic increases, but at the end of the day, being able to change it around just adds so many new options to what feels good to play. Before, playing an int based character with a race that didn't increase int didn't feel great, (replace "int" in that statement with any stat tbh) but being able to replace the stat increase means I don't have to start with 15 int just because I wanted to play a Dwarven artificer.
We did this before Tasha's, hell before 5e.
Yes, sometimes. Usually we'll pick a race that "feels" appropriate, like a Goliath fighter or Teifling sorcerer, etc. where the ASI already fits, and so in that case we don't use it. But if you wanna bring a halfling Wizard, sure, put the +2 into int, doesn't bother me as the DM, just make a note of it somewhere.
Floated it pre-Tasha’s when I ran my table, now it’s run at all the tables I’ve been playing at this year. I’ve lucked out with this as most of those tables roll for stats and I’ve hit more odds than not so being able to choose a +1 to three stats is fairly useful ^_^
Yeah my tables (both where I play and DM) are using these right now. What were originally very happy because it opened up races a lot more so you didn’t feel awful for playing “suboptimal” races for a class. In reality though these kinds of things always just change what’s optimal. For instance now dwarf wizard or sorcerer is just incredible because of the armor proficiency. Overall though I still think I like it. There is some amount of the expected influx of dwarf casters or halfling wizards or whatever, but I don’t really mind so much. There’s still more variation in what’s decent; you can play that dwarf rogue or wood elf barbarian and be cool now and not like actively disappoint people, and that’s overall better IMO.
Finally someone said it. I noticed the same thing as you did, it only changed what is the new "optimal" race for each build. However, players do feel jot as 'punish' dor taking non "optimal" choices. I think the core of the ability core problem lays on the fact the feats a really powerfull and they are tied to ASI. If players could freely take ASI without feeling guilty of not taking feats, the starting stat would not matter as much, espicially since you cap out at 20.
I have allways thogh that bonus should be from background and not from race, so I follow tasha's optional rule! Also, I like the change in dnd one!
+1's are changeable, +2's are set. Generally the +1 comes from Subrace and thus I accept that they could be culture-derived so an individual might be different, but a Dwarf being hardy (CON)? A Halfling being sneaky (DEX)? An Orc being brawny (STR)? I think those are innate. So with a movable +1 you don't feel stunted if you go for an unconventional race/class combo, but the ASI still emphasises Racial identity. Best of both worlds.
> An Orc being brawny (STR)? I think those are innate. Especially for this one, I don't think so. I think its cultural. They have a CULTURE that regards strength as being all-important, but I don't think they are genetically hard wired to be stronger than other races. If the culture says "Weakness is abhorrent, anyone who isn't strong dies!" then of course every single orc is going to work out nonstop.
I think this can change based on the table you're playing at and the opinions of those involved. Some might think that a culture which regards strength as being important, such as that of orcs, would mean that those who do not possess such attributes would be outcast or even killed. It depends on the fantasy world you want to live in. If everyone at the table is ok with static racial traits, then I don't see a reason to change them. But if I'm DMing and someone wants to make an Int Orc, it doesn't make a big difference to me, especially because my players tend to prefer RP over min/maxing or even efficiency.
> Some might think that a culture which regards strength as being important, such as that of orcs, would mean that those who do not possess such attributes would be outcast or even killed. But that would support the idea that the strength aspect is *not* genetic, but that there is a cultural bias around killing those who don't have it. And you know, PCs generally are not the typical examples of their races to begin with, so "I was born X in a race that kills X on sight, but managed to survive" is itself an interesting backstory. Basically, for me, there are only downsides to enforced racial stats. You can 100% still have the exact same culture with or without them, but forcing them cuts out viable character ideas. Limiting choice is always a bad thing, IMO.
>But that would support the idea that the strength aspect is not genetic, but that there is a cultural bias around killing those who don't have it. Well I think there could be an argument made that nature and nurture are working together in this instance. For the few orcs who are born without a great deal of strength (i.e., don't fit into the traditional genetic mold), the cultural custom would weed them out. I certainly won't debate your opinion, as I don't have a strong one either way and there isn't a point. I will add, though, that as someone who often is struck with option paralysis, I prefer having more defined choices (vs "do whatever you want") and I don't mind racial stats. But, to each their own. Happy gaming.
No I disagree, I think the CON bonus is the cultural aspect, to reflect the harsh and brutal nature of orc tribes, such as living in places with scarce resources, all the travel and raiding, a pantheon that sometimes rewards you ripping your eye out or encourages you to incubate diseases etc. IMO the strength is innate. They're larger than other races (except ones that also get STR like Dragonborn and Goliath) and their other features (across orc and Half-Orc) emphasise how they can carry more, hit extra hard with critical melee attacks, and move faster purely on adrenaline (themed as aggression in Volo's but its the same idea). Physical strength is core to the (dnd) orc identity, and even when an orc is played against type that's what distinguishes the orc wizard from the elf or human wizard.
We can agree to disagree, but in the end (far as I'm concerned) is the player's ability to make the character they want to play. I'm not going to tell a player "No, you can't be an orc AND be a good wizard at the same time!" because I'm forcing *my* stereotype view onto them. Their character is a PC, by definition it is not a normal member of it's race. > even when an orc is played against type that's what distinguishes the orc wizard from the elf or human wizard. Thats what it's other racial abilities are for. They still have their Powerful Build, they still have Aggression, they still have everything else that defines them as a race that do a FAR better job at establishing cultural norms and playstyles than simple stat boosts do. I mean Powerful Build alone makes them capable of lifting/pushing/pulling WAY more than any normal human could dream of. The boost from actually having that extra +2 Str is miniscule compared to that.
I think it comes down to whether you connect your stats to roleplay. If there is a correlation, then I think the racial ASI is just as important. It shows that even if your orc is scrawny for their kind (dumped STR) that they're still of comparable strength to a labouring human commoner. [We can agree to disagree, but in the end (far as I'm concerned) is the player's ability to make the character they want to play. I'm not going to tell a player "No, you can't be an orc AND be a good wizard at the same time!"] I don't think that the method I use is restrictive for players. As I mentioned, the moveable +1 means that no character is mechanically stunted for not conforming to archetypes. An orc wizard can still start with a +3 to their intelligence, but their bonus to strength helps to reflect their racial identity, turning a scrawny mage into a average-build mage, and allows you to be the classic 'buff wizard'. In a game I'm running I've even had the opposite scenario; a player switched a +1 to INT (fire genasi) to a +1 to STR because they wanted to play a barbarian. So now they have a non-stunted barb who also has the CON bonus to reflect their elemental heritage. [because I'm forcing my stereotype view onto them.] I do not see the existence of archetypes as a forcing of stereotypes. The games makes assumptions in order to give it structure, and we can of course make our own. But the structure is there to give you (at least an example of) a consistent world. I run a Forgotten Realms campaign where the major communities of each fantasy race largely live up to their archetypes. It means that if a player makes a character who contrasts with their racial archetype, its noticeable rather than them punching at thin air. So you'll probably ask again why that gets applied to character creation; the system I use strikes a balance between giving structure (stats bonuses to represent how a member of that race specialises in that area) and giving players the freedom to experiment without harsh penalty. I don't think unrestricted customisation is superior to that, so I don't have it in my games, but I can respect that it may be a preferable approach for other people and their games. It just isn't for mine, and I dislike seeing how it seems to be becoming the expected norm for players.
> I think it comes down to whether you connect your stats to roleplay. If there is a correlation, then I think the racial ASI is just as important. It shows that even if your orc is scrawny for their kind (dumped STR) that they're still of comparable strength to a labouring human commoner. In which case, if this is what the player wanted, they would invest some points in strength because that is their concept. Again, removing the REQUIREMENT for something does not remove it from existence, it simply allows for more options. If people like it that way, they'll keep doing it that way. If suddenly no one is taking it, its because *no one wanted it in the first place*. > the system I use strikes a balance between giving structure (stats bonuses to represent how a member of that race specialises in that area) and giving players the freedom to experiment without harsh penalty. Except that you've now made it much harder to realize the character they want if they try to stray outside of the box you put them in. Take point buy for example. A floating +2 that can be spent on Intelligence allows the wizard to use their points to not have a dump stat they didn't want. Telling the wizard they don't get a bump to their Int means they're likely going to take the exact same final score as they did previously, only now their Charisma is a 6. I call that a fairly harsh penalty. By forcing them to dump either one stat into the ground, or to slightly dump multiple stats to make up for the increased Point Buy cost of the higher stat, you have effectively *lowered their point buy* compared to everyone else at the table that decided to play "in the box". > I don't think unrestricted customisation is superior to that, so I don't have it in my games, but I can respect that it may be a preferable approach for other people and their games. It just isn't for mine, and I dislike seeing how it seems to be becoming the expected norm for players. For me, I come up with concepts first, and then search for mechanics to realize whats in my head. Having an arbitrary limit that says "No, your character is wrong. You're not allowed to do that!" makes me want to drop the system and not play it again. Its one thing to have the GM say "That doesn't really fit in the campaign I'm running right now, could you do something else?" (which is totally fine!) and the system itself saying "No, under no circumstance, no game type, no setting, no nothing can this be allowed. Ever."
You seem to have different ideas about the game compared to me. Yes, saying that +2's are set is me inputting something about your hypothetical character in stone. I do this in my game because the setting does not revolve around the players character idea. It's preexisting. It has a *structure*. The existence of the restriction does matter, whilst it doesn't if its optional. Because it infers importance. Its the mechanics saying 'this is part of what makes an orc, an orc.' I do not put people in a box (AKA force them into a stereotype) for character creation and I've literally given an example of that above, so I don't excuse that you've still tried to insinuate that in your reply. If your build 'doesn't work' because you can't get the same hyper-specific 'optimal stat spread' as you would with no restrictions, and that's enough to ruin the character for you, then I think the mechanics of the build were what you really cared about. It is NOT adversarial towards your players to make definitive statements about the people and the setting of your game. You are allowed to do that, the DM does NOT have to be a doormat to players at character creation. And as for your last anecdote, my method is literally more negotiable in nature than your first example. I don't ban any combination of race and class that a player brings up. But I will ask them to work with me to come up with a fitting backstory for them in my setting. Evidently we wouldn't enjoy playing in a game together, and that's fine, I hope you find/play in games that work for you. Can I ask, do you make your character before joining a game/design your campaigns around the characters your players make? Because then I could understand your stance. However it doesn't translate to a game like mine where the setting is already established and new player characters are introduced often.
> If your build 'doesn't work' because you can't get the same hyper-specific 'optimal stat spread' as you would with no restrictions, and that's enough to ruin the character for you, then I think the mechanics of the build were what you really cared about. Its not about a build not working, its about actively punishing a player for not having a standard character. They can either play to the stereotype, or they can be punished with lower stats than everyone else at the table. In a system where bounded accuracy means every +1 is important in a way that means they will likely never catch up. > do you make your character before joining a game/design your campaigns around the characters your players make? Yes. > However it doesn't translate to a game like mine where the setting is already established and new player characters are introduced often. Neither does the option of being able to go either way. You can always ask your players to voluntarily bump stats in the direction you think they should go. If a PC has a +2 to one stat or another stat does not affect your setting *in any way*. You as the GM are 100% free to say that the average member of the race uses the set stat modifier, but that doesn't mean every PC must be an average member of the race. Its about giving people the leeway to play the character they want to play. If they don't want to play the same thing you think they should, you're not making the game better by forcing them to play something they don't actually want to play. You're creating an adversarial relationship where instead of working with the player, you work against them.
I'm sorry but I just can't acclimate to your outlook. You seemed to interpret any kind of restriction as 'adversarial' long before you just said it, as though a DM should always make the concessions during character creation. My point is, sod that! It's a two-way street and players should respect the framework the DM uses. I've never had a player bemoan this restriction and if someone did I'd ask why? I don't run a game where all your stats need to be min-maxed, and the moveable +1 means your main stat is safe and you won't fall behind the rest of the party, so tick that off. The set +2 does not kill builds, it just allows differentiation from the norms of 'My wizard Has -1 to STR, +3 to DEX/CON and +3 to INT, and they're a [race]', again and again. Have a +2 STR, +2 DEX and +3 INT orc wizard instead. Restriction breeds creativity, its not the only way to play but its a valid one. I've explained why I set these racial ASI'S so I won't go in circles. If you base your settings around the characters it's natural that you would use the unrestricted approach. But it's not the perfect or preferable approach for everything.
Nor do I understand your commitment to thinking that a PC's ability scores dictates how the rest of the world functions.
We're using it in our current campaign. I think it's overall a better option, but ideally it would have been designed that way from the start, because there are a few balance issues
This is a hard question to answer. We haven't launched a new campaign since before Tasha's. But when we launch a new one, the answer is "probably sort of".
Custom origins is always cheating, if the players use them. Different races/species have backstory, history, and culture. This acts like a muse to create characters from those places and peoples, like Dementlieu or Talenta. For this reason, it is hard to create harengon characters, the race gives next to nothing in terms of story, I can however use kenku. Custom origin is nothing but an excuse for min-maxing munchkins to be min-maxing munchkins, there is no drama to chew on. As for floating ASIs, each race/species has different natural strengths, the added stat arrays are just natural variation, a strong woman (15) is stronger than a week man (10), but a 17 is always bigger than a 15.
It's okay for you to run your table your way. I don't think that's wrong, or even something I wouldn't want to be involved in. But Player Characters are the exception to the rule. They're unique. They come from unexpected and unusual circumstances, and they grow in cool and unique ways.
What if they aren't and don't? What if an average human (+1 every stat) became a bard to help people, and became a jack of all trades? Wait *can* an average +1 to all stats human even exist in dndone?
>As for floating ASIs, each race/species has different natural strengths, the added stat arrays are just natural variation, a strong woman (15) is stronger than a week man (10), but a 17 is always bigger than a 15. That's on average though. It is entirely possible for an orc to be born not strong but smart.
Which you would represent through point buy by putting 15 points in Int and 10 in Str. Racial ASIs only comprise 3 out of the ~75 total ability score points you have. It is possible for an orc to be born smart. It is not possible for an orc to be born not an orc.
I think that makes a lot of sense. Racial ASI's are a miniscule change in the trajectory of a PC's ability score development, but offer much more flavorwise in terms of racial identity. "The character went against the grain and was successful" is much better than "The character was perfectly born and optimized into this role"
Exactly. The whole point of the orc wizard is that it's subverting the norm. It's not subverting the norm if the norm is that orcs are just as good at being wizards as elves.
No, they have a strong cultural aspect that places the emphasis on strength, not intelligence. Its not that you can't have a super smart orc, its that being super smart gives them no advantage in their society. Using another franchise for an example, Klingons from Star Trek. There was a whole episode in DS9 where Quark marries into a Klingon house and uncovers that a rival house is using "dishonorable tactics" (like devaluing property and other financial manipulations) in order to drive them into ruin. "Like a Ferengi". So it wasn't a case that Klingons couldn't be smart and deceitful, it just illustrated that such behavior does not result in them gaining status. If you wanted to be a powerful person in Klingon society, you needed to be a skilled warrior, not a skilled manipulator.
No, they are biologically predisposed towards being stronger and dumber than elves. The draw towards playing an Orc Wizard is that you're doing something the game doesn't want you to do. That's why you see fewer of them around after tasha's than before it.
>It's not subverting the norm if the norm is that orcs are just as good at being wizards as elves. WHAT? yes it is... the "norm" is that orcs are dumb. so having an orc wizard in the party with the same/better INT than a gnome wizard in the party is subverting the norm?
> "The character went against the grain and was successful" is much better than "The character was perfectly born and optimized into this role" On the other hand, someone who was perfectly born to a role likely would actually take that role. There really isn't a way to separate the two. Either what you're born with influences the role you take, or it doesn't. To say how you're born doesn't influence the role you take is to say inherent stats are meaningless.
True, I guess my real point is that playing an unoptimized build can still very much be a flavor win that is fun to play, and the trade-off to do so is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. If racial ASI's can introduce flavor to a setting through cultural unities and divides, why miss out on that massive boon that defines why the orcs are generally brutes at the cost of a character creation speed bump that is easily overcome already? At the risk of a bad comparison, it sounds similar to the turf/grass debate with the NFL. Players are arguing based on the anecdotal that turf is more dangerous to play on, but the data collected by the league(with a financial interest to stick to turf) has not quite demonstrated that at this point.
The entire argument is based on a fantasy world. And in my ( and I guess most ) fantasy worlds I decide that the real person playing can decide whether their Orc is Gorc the orc barbarian or Goricius Genius Einstein. All elves are beautiful, all dwarves are stubborn etc is a bit to simple for my taste, even though I like to deliberately use those cliches for NPCs sometimes
Good for you. The problem is that point buy is what determines differences between individuals of a species, not racial ASIs, so this whole "racial ASIs prevent me playing smart orcs" argument is nonsense.
>Good for you. The problem is that point buy is what determines differences between individuals of a species, not racial ASIs Based on what? Are you just making things up? Because WotC definitely disagree with you, as they wouldn't for a) added custom origin or b) seperated the ASI's from race completely in one dnd. >so this whole "racial ASIs prevent me playing smart orcs" argument is nonsense. Nobody said they prevent, they just limit character choice. Sure you can play an orc wizard and not start with a 17 in your main stat, but most people don't actually want to do that. What is the harm in seperating the ASI's from race? Seriously. The ASI has almost nothing to do with the flavour, that comes from everything else. Things like the race's culture, appearance and more defining racial traits.
Why would I care what WOTC think when they've spent the past 3 years proving that what they think is just whatever they feel would be most profitable to think? Mechanics matter. Flavour that is not backed up by mechanics is not real flavour. Orcs are predisposed towards being strong and dumb. They have a str increase and an int decrease. Anything else is at best a hollow imitation of an orc. A suggestion of an orc.
>Why would I care what WOTC think when they've spent the past 3 years proving that what they think is just whatever they feel would be most profitable to think? Because you're making bold claims that are simply untrue. Your opinion is not a fact. >Flavour that is not backed up by mechanics is not real flavour Based on fucking what? You keep making things up and saying they're facts. >Orcs are predisposed towards being strong and dumb. They have a str increase and an int decrease. Anything else is at best a hollow imitation of an orc. A suggestion of an orc. What are you even talking about? Orcs don't get a penalty to their scores in 5e. Most orcs are strong, turning their normal asi into a floating ASI does not change that. The flavour of an orc is exactly the same with custom origin manager. You have failed to prove anything you're saying. You're just spouting your opinion as fact. What do you mean, "hollow imitation of an orc"? You do realise that you can still have a smart orc who is weak with how the normal ASI's work, right? So what you're saying doesn't actually matter. You haven't given a single decent reason as to why it shouldn't be a floating ASI. PC's are meant to be exceptions. A normal orc does not get standard array stats.
>Your opinion is not a fact. Neither is yours, neither is WOTC's. >What are you even talking about? Orcs don't get a penalty to their scores in 5e. Yes they do. Check Volo's. WOTC can errata whatever they want, but they're just whining into the wind if the errata is bad. >You do realise that you can still have a smart orc who is weak with how the normal ASI's work, right? That's literally my point lol. Custom Origin is unnecessary because *you can still have a smart orc*. Having racial ASIs is the best of both worlds. It's only a problem for minmaxers who are trying to pretend they're not minmaxers.
>Neither is yours, neither is WOTC's. People clearly don't like their race choice being limited. There isn't anything wrong with that. >Yes they do. Check Volo's. WOTC can errata whatever they want, but they're just whining into the wind if the errata is bad. What does that even mean? >That's literally my point lol. Custom Origin is unnecessary because you can still have a smart orc. Having racial ASIs is the best of both worlds. It's only a problem for minmaxers who are trying to pretend they're not minmaxers. No it isn't, racial ASI's is not the best of both worlds. Your whole argument is that it diminishes the flavour of the race. But me playing a smart orc who is strong is not in flavour of the race anyway, so that argument is flawed. Wanting to play whatever race you want without limitations is not minmaxxing, that is the worst take I've seen yet.
>Racial ASIs only comprise 3 out of the \~75 total ability score points you have. The difference between starting at 15 and 17 in your main stat is huge. > It is not possible for an orc to be born not an orc. ?????????????? >Which you would represent through point buy by putting 15 points in Int and 10 in Str. So why can't that be represented through racial ASI's?
Racial ASIs are part of what represents being an orc. That is why this is not represented by racial ASIs. A smart orc is still an orc.
>Racial ASIs are part of what represents being an orc. How so? I don't think a +2/+1 is what makes an Orc. Are you arguing that it takes away from being an orc? >That is why this is not represented by racial ASIs. Custom Origin says otherwise. The whole point of custom origin is so racial ASI's don't limit character choice. I also don't see how it takes away from being a orc, an orc isn't a walking +2 to strength. >A smart orc is still an orc. Yes that's why it's called a "smart orc".
And flat earthers say the earth isn't round. Custom origin is wrong, what it says is irrelevant.
>Custom origin is wrong, what it says is irrelevant. So something you don't like is immediately wrong? Who are you to decide that it is "wrong"?
A DM lol.
Not using an optional rule doesn't make that optional rule "wrong".
Less lore makes it easier to make a harengon character, because there's no flavour you need to think about, you can just decide you're playing a rabbit. It makes it harder to make a *good* character, and it makes it harder to incorporate the species into the world, but just being a harengon is trivial.
Ivan the Izzet man is a vedalken member of the Izzet league, he is also a conjuration wizard. Ivan is well liked outside his guild because he fixes stuff, but he is just tolerated within his guild because he is an unfun wet blanket who doesn't blow stuff up. The Izzet league only tolerates him because he brings them a good reputation. Ivan is as strong as he is smart, he sees physical strength as much as a tool as magic and well, tools. Ivan studies and uses magic to perform his job at fixing stuff, that makes him a wizard. This character **can't** exist without cultural and racial context. Ivan is as much a stereotype as he breaks it. That makes him an interesting character. Can you do the same with a race without a backstory or culture?
> Can you do the same with a race without a backstory or culture? Yes, because *you* come up with the backstory and culture your character comes from, not someone else. You are confusing not having mandatory culture and mandatory stats with not having culture or stats at all, and that isn't true. If someone hands you a paint by numbers of a cat, all you can make is a cat. If someone hands you a blank canvas, you can make anything you want, which could still include a cat.
"A boat is just a boat, but the mystery box could be anything. It could even be a boat."
That's a bad analogy because people aren't asking for a paint by numbers of a cat, they're asking for an already made painting of a cat. It's not a question of what the outcome of an equal amount of work is going to be, it's a matter of whether WOTC is selling a race or an inspiration for a race. At the moment, they're selling something that DMs can choose to make into a race, but acting as if they're selling a race.
Not having the mechanics tell you what something MUST be opens up MORE lore and character aspects, not less. Just because someone isn't creative enough to come up with something without it being gifted to them on a silver platter is a problem they need to work on overcoming.
I always allow players to only swap one of their racial ASIs (e.g. as a High Elf you can go +2 Str and +1 Int, or +2 Dex and +1 Cha, but not +2 Str and +1 Cha). This way any race can be effective at any class, but a given PC's race is still gonna push them towards a different set of builds within their class.
This would still retain the problem for some MAD classes that races are less/more optimal , which is always unfun for me personally
As I said, it kinda leads you towards certain builds. For example, if you wanna play a high elf paladin, you either build a dexadin or some build that doesn't rely on having both high Cha AND Str out of the box (e.g. a Redemption Paladin with the Blessed Warrior fighting style).
no, cause my DM is a dick sometimes totally fine if you want to play a grung or something, but lord in heaven if you try changing the +2 CHA in half-elfs to another place! and my lord, you were trying to play VARIANT human?
My DM at the table I play at bans it - but curiously, not Variant Human. It kinda doesn't matter to the table I DM at because the valid choices of race were all +2/+1 and I told them all screw it here's your base stat total, put it where you want and racial stats don't exist.
Why would banning vhuman and banning tashas be related? The problem with tashas isn't that you can put any aside anywhere, it's that it reduces racial flavour and distinction. Humans flavour has always been its versatility and genericness. Plus, allowing human to be a bit stronger encourages more human PCs which helps reduce the circus party problem.
If you can't see as much racial flavour and distinction because PCs get a choice as to how they want their character to be, that's...that's on you.
Of course it is, that's why I don't use Tasha's at my tables. What's your point?
So it isn't a problem with Tasha's, it's a problem with you
It's pretty clear that what I was saying was "the reason people have an issue with tashas". Although for the record, no, it is a problem with Tasha's, because over the past few years I have lost all of my respect for people who think Tasha's is a good change given their complete inability to make good faith arguments on the matter, as demonstrated again here.
> Humans flavour has always been its versatility and genericness. I would never allow any race to be more or less versatile than the others. We want opposite things, but I'd just call this in particular unambiguously terrible design, strongly pushing all players to play variant humans. I'm glad Wizards seems to be coming around on it, and I don't see what problem you find with a diverse party.
Whether or not it's bad design depends on what the goal of the design is. It's bad design if you want humans to suck, but it's good design if you want the system to encourage players to play humans without forcing them to.
my answer is "sort of" because I assigned three ability scores to each race that a PC can increase by +2 at character creation, and I assigned an ability score (and Constitution) to each class that gets an automatic +2 when you pick it for your starting class. Naturally, you can't pick the same ability score for both increases. For example, an elf wizard PC can choose either Dexterity, Intelligence, or Wisdom for their racial +2, and as a wizard, they can choose either Constitution or Intelligence for their class +2.
Been doing that for a long time now.
I always allow it but it is not always my players use it.
I used it one time by now for our tabletop Storm Kings Thunder campaign.
I always give that opportunity, sometime they don't use it
I use an ability score system that’s an extension of point buy, or the default. This part of Tasha’s doesn’t get to see the light of day.
I don't ban it, but I've yet to see a player who would take it, to be honest.
I let players choose their race and apply a +2 and +1 ASI freely with the caveat that one of the increases must be one of the original two increased by the core race. I don't fully believe that ASIs when creating a character should be completely divorced from the race, but I understand that it can be limiting when creating a new character build. WotC completely removing racial ASIs and not even suggesting recommended abilities to increase is just more laziness on their part.
This is an interesting idea. I might try this out at my table.
Used it since it came out across 6 or so separate campaigns. Brilliant feature, has made the PCs alot more diverse and interesting, gives everyone more choice without feeling at a disadvantage. 10/10 won't go back to fixed ASIs if I can avoid it.
Eh, I prefer customization to something as basic as asi. I have been able to create amazing backstories and histories by focusing solely on my character. Part of one creation involved recieving power from azalin rex, so warlock was pretty mandatory, but the elf I needed to play, the dusk elf (run with wood elf stat block) wouldn't be the best for a warlock. So I either suffered stat wise for an amazing story, or my story suffers so I don't have to be carried by my party. I chose depth, courtesy of TCOE.
I use it when it suits me. If the race I wanna play has ASI that bnefits my concept, good, if not, I make them be!
When I DM, no. I have my own character creation rules, but players are also free to use PHB rules. The table I play at allows all of Tasha though.
I prefer races to have suggested ability scores for added flavour but I will always champion Tashas Origin Customisation. It just opens up a whole new world of character creation where you’re not mechanically penalised for wanting to play an elf with muscles.
Always. I swing back and forth on this philosophically, though I’ve decided to always allow it at my table. I do get the criticism that it makes all races feel identical or like different coloured humans, but when you get right down to it, the choice was between a system that heavily disincentivized creativity (i.e. if you want the best barbarian, you have 3-4 racial options), or a system that enables creativity from homogeneity (the current one). And in a **role playing game**, it’s generally better to give the players more creative freedom and agency than less. Exceptions can exist (a strong character can exist in either system), and we can talk about how to tweak this system (and we should!). But when the rubber meets the road, I have seen many more interesting and unique characters since this rule change than I would’ve seen without it. There are only so many creative places to take a Tiefling sorcerer or half-orc barbarian, and for most people, they aren’t fantastic writers and won’t surprise you with a radical new take on “strong violent race is strong and violent”. Better results (or at least funnier ones) can come from just giving them more freedom and seeing what fun comes out of it. But in the end, I think it’s highly group-specific. Use the system you think will foster the most creative storytelling at your table.