Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Please consider removing racial Ability Score Increases!

I fully understand it may well be late to offer suggestions or requests at this stage of development, but I have to try. I believe this change would significantly improve BG3 by offering tons of new viable character building options, encourage experimentation and roleplaying.

The Problem
Most races grant a predetermined +2/+1 increase to two Ability Scores, with humans, half-elves and mountain dwarves being notable exceptions. This contributes to race being an important character-building choice, but also greatly limits the pool of viable characters. Not starting with a +3 modifier in your primary class ability is a terrible hit to your character's level of power. In Gale's words, "It is to be avoided".

As a result, the narrow selection of race-class combinations where the racial ability increase complements the class completely outshines all other options. We can still have fun with our gnome druids, half-orc wizards and githyanki monks, but we'll be doing so knowing that we're intentionally crippling our characters. This is bad for both character building AND role-playing.

The Solution
In Tasha's Cauldron of Everything an optional rule was introduced where starting Ability Score Increases are no longer tied to race. In short, under this new ruling the player assigns bonuses in a +2/+1 or a +1/+1/+1 spread to a combination of Ability Scores determined partly by the player's choice and partly by class, background or both. In the interest of keeping this post short I'll link an article describing the changes (note: this may not be the latest version of the ruling ): https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/563-reimagining-racial-ability-scores

At first glance it might seem that this ruling simplifies races, removes some of their identity and trivializes getting an optimal Ability spread. In practice it's quite the opposite. It encourages the player to look at each race in terms of the unique features it grants and how it fits the fantasy concept one wants to roleplay rather than just checking if it increases the right number. Dozens of race-class combinations one wouldn't seriously consider before now become viable, which is fantastic for both avid roleplayers and theorycrafting enthusiasts. Everyone wins. It's no surprise that this is now DnD5e's official default ruling for determining Ability Score Increases!

TL;DR / Quick Summary
Decoupling starting Ability Score Increase from race

• would deepen the game's character building system by introducing tons of new viable builds
• would remove the unnecessary punishment for picking the race-class combination we like and thus encourage roleplaying
• would highlight the actual features of each race as they'd no longer be overshadowed by ASI
• is the accepted default ruling for DnD5e, with BG3's current ruling being obsolete

Thank you for reading and please share your thoughts I'm curious to see what the community thinks of this.

Im glad we have Racial bonuses ...
They help distinguish races physicaly.

I was never fan of TCOE change in this regard.

Funnily enough, new changes in unearthed arcana i liked even more.

I think you're seeing it too negatively.
There isn't just one useful ability score for each class.

For example, Dexterity and Constitution are useful regardless of class.
And even wisdom is pretty useful since there are a LOT of will save checks in the game.
Technically, there is no such thing as a dump ability stat in this game.

And every two levels you can increase any ability score by +2.
This means that even if you start with 14, you can end up with 20.
So an Elf wizard and a Half-orc wizard at level 12 both can have an intelligence of 20.

So yes, SOME races are initially better in main stats for some classes.
But you can distribute your starting stats so that at level 8 there will be practically no difference between the "TOP" race for your class and the race you chosen.

Also ... i forgot to mention.

IF!!!
We get rolled stats, racial bonuses become much less rellevant.

Yes, i know starting with 20 is allways better than start with 18 ... obviously.
But you just got +4 for nothing ... another +1 is not so big deal.

I wouldn't oppose this if it were offered as an option like a check box during character creation but I didn't like that TCoE rule AT ALL and if it were universally implemented I it would take away from my enjoyment of the game.

With those rules the differences between species are really just cosmetic. Part of the fun of DnD is exploring the rules and planning your character around the strengths and weaknesses of different species.

And the differences aren't enough to lead to a crippled character. If you understand the rules and are taking on a hit on an ability score you are doing that to play against type. In 3.5 half orc paladin became such a popular combination exactly because it's a story of someone playing against type. I want play in a world filled with dexterous halflings and wise wood elves. And if I decide to play foolish wood elf or a clumsy halfling I'm doing that because I want to break with type.

So long story short, Tasha's rules are bad for role-playing and do damage to the setting

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with that. Pick any class and I'll tell you at least two abilities you can safely ignore. That there exists a scenario where a Wizard may benefit from high Strength doesn't mean Strength isn't generally useless to a Wizard.


The key word here is "initially", which is not true at all. If your key ability is behind by 1 at character creation, it's going to be behind by 1 for the majority of the game. I'll try to illustrate why I think so with an example.

I begin the game as a hill dwarf monk, starting with a 15 in Dexterity. This is my main Ability which determines my hit chance, damage, AC, initiative and Dex saves. Saying it's in my best interests to have it as high as possible would be a massive understatement. As you said, I'd start a little behind with a 15 at level 1, then increase to 17 at level 4, 19 at level 8 and finally 20 at level 12.
Meanwhile, a completely basic human monk starts with a 16 - that's already a +3 bonus instead of +2. They up to 18 at level 4, 20 at level 8 and can unlock a feat - many of which are gamechanging - at level 12. Throughout the entire length of the game there won't be a second where my dwarf isn't behind.

I've used a generous example here, because it gets worse. An elf or halfling could start with a Dex of 17. There are feats which grant a +1 bonus to an ability score in addition to their base effect. If I pick such a feat at level 4, I bridge the gap between me and the human who's now at 18 Dex a little bit, but the elf monk can pick such a feat too, keep at +1 to everything ahead of my dwarf and then continue to reach 20 Dex at level 8. The non-ability racial features are all balanced against each other, so nothing I gain from being a dwarf can make up for this disparity.
Now monk doesn't need feats as much, but this gets a lot worse for classes that rely on certain feats to be effective. A variant human fighter can have 20 Strength and a major feat like GWM or Polearm Master by 6th level. Meanwhile a hill dwarf fighter will barely reach 19 Str without feats by that time.

This is how even a seemingly small difference like starting with a 15 or a 16 in a single ability can add up staggeringly over the course of the game. I see very little benefit in limiting a decent starting array to a select few races.

The more rules that gets removed the less flavour the game will have. It's not just advantages that makes roleplaying games fun, it's also the disadvantages. It's about choices with consequences. Soon, races will have no meaning other than different skins..

I hear you and I largely agree. Races should feel distinct and the features they grant should give them an identity.

What I'm saying is that achieving this via ability scores is poor design in my opinion. I'm biased here due to my positive experiences with Pathfinder 2e where each race receives one "free" increase to any ability (which allows them to start on fair and equal footing compared to other options) and a list of unique racial feats to choose from. These feats give each race a lot of personality and made me realize that ability scores aren't necessary to achieve that feeling of unique identity at all - in fact, they're detrimental because they shrink your pool of viable choices.

My other point is, this is already a thing in 5e. The dextrous and nimble halflings are small, can easily hide and move through bigger creatures' spaces. The primal, graceful wood elves move swiftly and hide easily among forest foliage. The hell-touched tieflings can wield infernal magic, dragonborn can breathe their kindred dragon's element and the psionically gifted githyanki can jump and teleport. I don't think this is cosmetic at all. Why can't my half-orc paladin be as intimidating as a half-elf? Is my halfling wizard less smart than a human? I know there's cases that make little sense lore-wise (e.g. 20 Strength halfling and half-orc in the same group), but I see those as rare and extreme exceptions. And if someone wants to play a chonky halfling barbarian and not feel behind, why not?

I agree.
That's probably why there's a quest in the game that allows you to increase any stat by one, even before you reach level 4 (or shortly after).
In the long run, the differences between the races are minimal.

Sure, some races will be slightly better for certain professions due to combinations of appropriate stats and passive racial bonuses, but it's definitely not something you should worry about.
What may seem like a big difference at the beginning will be completely negligible in the end.

But the funny thing is that according to Larian, the most played race is "human male".
It seems that players value immersion and roleplay value more than min-maxing their stats.

What about all the other choices you can make in the game, shouldn't they also be free of consequence?
Why only this choice that you happen to crusade for?
Why can't i be a human that looks like a dragonborn?
Why can't i side with The gobbos and kill the druids, but still have the druids be alive and still be friendly towards me?

You can !
Fane's mask is in BG3.

An item that allows any race to change into any other.
So even @Llengrath can change his human monk to look like his favorite hill dwarf monk.

The quest stat increase is always available to your character, which means it's no different from any other ASI - if you were behind, you'll remain behind. A minimal difference is huge if it affects the one stat that your class relies on most.


I wasn't talking about min-maxing, but about not being below curve. Humans are coincidentally very good at that regardless of class since they can start with a 16 in anything, so those who chose them had little to complain about. Anything less starts you off weaker than your companions, which feels bad. But I concede that lots of people probably don't care about that...

Besides, the "male human fighter" is always the most played thing in every game. Lots of people simply skim through character creation, end up playing the game for an hour or so but still contribute to statistics.

Changing the way ability scores are assigned is not removing rules - it's removing a limitation. The ability to make meaningful choices hinges on having a set of options with balanced advantages and disadvantages. There is literally zero advantage to taking a race that doesn't let you start with at least a 16 in your primary ability over one that does. Removing this limitation will increase the amount of meaningful choices to be made, not decrease it. I say that with confidence because there's other roleplaying systems out there that are crystal clear proof of it.

Its not about making meaningful choices, it's about making though choices. You are not supposed to get an advantage you are supposed to trade something useful agianst a flavour you want. You want to be halfling barbarian? Sure go ahead, but it will be an upphill battle.

And as people already pointed out. Just roll your stats and allocate them wherever you feel like it.

That is well said.

If all races were exactly the same, then it doesn't matter which one you play as, because your decision will only affect your appearance (which none of the NPCs will appreciate) and few dialogues (which you can still bypass using spells and items that temporarily change your race). In that case, such a choice of race is without significant consequences. But the fact that races are different in many ways gives our decisions a certain justification and meaning.
Personally, I think the differences are not big enough and could be bigger, but I'm definitely glad they're there.

I find it ridiculous that some people would complain that the huge muscular almost half-beast that are half-orcs have more natural physical strength than the tiny and civilized halflings.

I think I finally see what you mean. Correct me if I'm wrong - in your opinion, "strategic" choices and "flavour" choices should always be placed on the same scales. Having to sacrifice power for flavour should be normal. I don't disagree with this entirely, I certainly think some ridiculous concepts should require a significant sacrifice. But I'm definitely more on the 'isolate flavour picks from power picks' side of the scale, because imo that way creativity is punished less. I hope we can shake hands and agree to disagree on that


I firmly believe what matters is on the inside

Couner question for OP ...
It feels right to you that you can create a Gnome and a Half-Orc with almost same statistics? O_o

Well i actually believe that it nurtures creativity when you are hampered by something out of your control. that way you have to find more creative ways to vanquish your foes..

But of course hombre, we can shake hands and agree to disagree.

I dunno, I think sacrificing power for flavor is part of the fun. I'm looking forward to playing my half-orc monk knowing full well it's not best choice, because that trade off is appealing

Just to be very clear, that is NOT what I see as a problem. These are extreme edge cases. I would also remind you that it's all too easy for a gnome and a half-orc to have nearly the same statistic in 5e as is, albeit at some penalty. 20 strength halflings haven't been a problem for anyone so far. They won't be either if they get a similar head start to half-orcs. Half-orcs have enough going for them to be tough melee powerhouses.

What I do mind is twofold: that there are many unreasonable class-race limitations forced upon us by the system and that it's achieved via ability scores (starting with a 15 feels very bad). These problems pertain to many, many cases which are far less extreme than the ones you name. This is what I was aiming at when I asked, is a halfling wizard less smart than a human? It was just a quick example of what I see as a reasonable but unsatisfying character build, I didn't mean for this to devolve into a competition where we pull out absurd extremes and ask "oh, so this is fine with you?"