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

I think that the rule should set the exception, not the other way around. What I mean is - if you gravely want that intelligent orc to be as intelligent as a gnome, sure, but sort this exception out with your DM. The whole world logic shouldn't spin around this orc and that what he wants.

Imho ... main problem with TCoE, is that its general.

There is nothing bad about once uppon a time having a single Dwarf that is in eyes of other Dwarves not strong or tough at all, but its actualy smart (like Book smart, Int rather than Wis) and agile ...

But TCoE makes them all this way. :-/

Agree, and that is sorta what DnD one is doing... its like backgrounds in 5e its explicably stated in PhB that all backgrounds in the PHB is just examples, you could make your own by choosing 2 skills, and a combination of 2 languages and or 2tool skills... and a backgorund feature...

Meaning your Urchin,isnt locked in a sterotype vise, you could have gorwn up with entirly difrent set of skills then the phb urchin... how logical is it that a all urchin in the entire world have slight of hand and stealth ?... isnt survival and persusaion just as logical ?...

My satisfaction is immeasurable and my day is saved

Also @Sansang thanks for making an account for this, I appreciate you.

You do know it might mean that you can roll for stats instead right?

Yes. Some way to start with 17 Dex on a tiefling rogue is better for the game than none imo.

This is a very good point. I can understand that the amount of distinguishing features per race is simply not enough for a lot of people to feel like each race really has its own identity, and just removing ASI could exacerbate the feeling. I would argue that ASI is an awkward patchwork covering for a deeper problem and we'd all be better off without it in the end, but I suppose that's a matter of preference.

Either way, this discussion has been quite interesting and eye-opening to me so far. I expected different opinions of course, but it really surprised me to see this much backlash against something I've personally had only positive experiences with.

It was a fun discussion and you made your point well 🙂

I personally wasn't a big fan of this option in Tasha's, as I do think the ability scores bonuses do reflect the culture of that race. I.E. Gnomes are known to be curious so it makes that growing up in that environment would encourage you to develop those skills. However, I do like the compromise of keeping any +2 you have (as that would have had a stronger influence on you) and being able to adjust the +1 of you can justify it with RP/backstory.

For example in my current PnP campaign, I have a Forest Gnome druid who studies biology at an academy. So he keeps his +12 Int as he's a scholar, but traded the +1 Dex for Wis, since he styled spending as much time in the wilds. I think that adjustment makes sense, but I wouldn't have fought for it, if my DM didn't offer it.

I'm actually planning for him to be my first PC, and have made him in EA and felt fine with his build.

If you allow players to chose their ability score increses independend of their race, wouldn't that reduce the amount of "good" race choices? Currently most races have at least one class where they are a good choice. If you allow them to have any stats, I don't think there are many race choices that could compete with a deep gnome for any class.

I think the very idea in the OP is horrible.

Races should be different and yes it should be natural that you orc mage will be dumber then a high elf even if he tries his damndest, especially if the high-elf also ties his damndest.
The more radical the differences between the various races, the better, and we should do EVERYTHING in order to make that happen, including racial speels, skills, and ability scores.
In fact, we should bring back NEGATIVE ability adjustments as well, and the ASI adjustments shouldn't be re-arrangable, except for maybe the half elves.
The race system should become MORE rigid, not less so.
Back in BG2, we had certain classes locked to certain races and the limitations of the races actually defined who they were.
The racial system in current D&D is way too individualistic and fluid, and it gives people the illusion that non-human races are basically just humans with exotic body party and shin colours.

I mean I heard some very dumb people say that orcs must not receive an ASI penalty to INT/CHA because that's racist against a certain race of real life humans.
What the hell? Orcs and half orcs are NOT HUMAN that is the entire point.

Well, I remember when some people on twitter threw an hissy fit claiming that "goblins in Hogwarts Legacy were antisemitic because they resembled jews", which is probably a parallel the devs themselves never even attempted and some of the most hilariously unintentionally (?) racist things I've ever heard.

Totally understandable!
And I can certainly see hints in BG3 as well.

For example, why are all dwarves short?
After all, a person's race is not defined by their gender or physical features!
Just to assume such a thing is incredibly racist!
People who think otherwise are worse than Hitler!

Let's gather a woke mob and demand the option to create 2 meter tall dwarves!

Everything about this is just horrible, I'm sorry. It only leads to an unfun and unimaginative experience where every race is nothing but a stereotype of itself.

There is a reason if most games are moving away from these kind of "features", and it's because they are just arbitrary limitations that says nothing about the world and the game. D&D is giving all races floating stats. Pathfinder 2ed (which have a better idea) gives static bonuses and floating bonuses which in the end brings every race to be able to do everything, putting an orc wizard on pair with an high elf wizard.

If I'm playing an orc shaman (reflavour of a druid or a cleric) that lives by worshipping the gods of nature, spent his life studying ways to heals his army and preparing magics to unleash the power of nature against his foes, you can bet I want it to be good as a wood elf druid.

As I suggested before, races are not defined by numbers. Races are defined by their unique features, like dark vision, breathing fire, or being fast learners.

The difference is that Orcs aren't real and Jews are. And Orcs are in BG3/D&D and J.K.-Rowling-style goblins aren't.

So let's not start a discussion about possible anti-semitic undertones in the depiction of Rowling's wizarding world goblins as it's utterly irrelevant here.

And since I'm posting anyway, a reminder to anyone who needs it that there's really no need to be rude or dismissive about people even if they're not here. Perhaps even especially if they're not here to defend themselves against possible misrepresentation. Quite apart from the fact we have quite enough to do debating with one another without bringing in notional folk who have views noone here has said they share

EDIT: And I'm also very disappointed to see another post talking about "woke mobs" despite my point yesterday that the term carries way too much political baggage and is generally best avoided. We can talk about what we want to see or not see in a game without opening another front in the culture wars. Please, be mindful that these are open, public forums for fun and friendly discussion of Larian's games for everyone interested, regardless of political persuasion. Part of keeping them that way is not using language that is unnecessarily political, is frequently used to dismiss or belittle people's politics or is likely to provoke political debate not directly related to the game.

And by doing so the game loses a lot of flavor, just to please the minmaxers who come with terrible excuses for why all races should be the same mechanically.

Seriously, do you actually think about the flavour of racial ASIs after like, level 5? Is that what you think of when you think about why you want to play a given race? When I think about 5e elves I'm not thinking about what stat they get +2 in, I think about the fact they don't sleep and thus can't be put to sleep magically, or the fact that their darkvision is a result of them being able to percieve the weave in a way other races can't. That's the mechanical stuff that provides real flavour, and if the game went harder on those things, then losing ASIs wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal. For example, what if elves also got a bonus to being able to identify spells being cast thanks to their weave sight? That's incredibly flavourful. Half-orcs are a great example of lots of flavour in their racial features.

I think Pathfinder 2e does it right, offering each ancestry(their term for races) a selection of racial feats that they can choose from every handful of levels. It guarantees that even without racial ASIs, an orc wizard and an elf wizard would bereally unique, and in fact would probably be built differently to take advantage of those ancestry feats without needing further encouragement from pre-set ASIs.

It was satirical overkill to emphasize the stupidity of the idea.
If you even suspected that I was serious, I'll probably sue my English teacher because he didn't teach me anything.
Moreover, it was on topic, since we discussed (and still discuss) that different races have unmistakable physical and mental differences, which should be at least somewhat reflected in their initial potential.

To make this even more clear, I would also be in favor of ability cap for certain races.
For example, however strong halfling may be (without the help of magic, alchemy, or the gods) they should never be able to attain the physical strength of the strongest half-orcs.
It's regular common sense.

The problem is that you are mixing things up. Strength is not only how strong is your character, but also how often he can hit, how much damage he inflicts, but also how much he can carry and how it can interact with other creatures.

An halfling is already "weaker" than an orc, because of its size that gives him disadvantage interacting with creatures bigger than him and making him carry and lift less (IIRC). Why do you want to make it also a worse swordman?

I had PMed you, so if you want to discuss further let's take it there and I will happily explain why the fact you weren't being serious does not make what you said okay, especially when taken in conjunction with the polemic I warned you about yesterday.

Arguing in thread with moderators about their requests to you is not something we're going to accept, but I am always happy to clarify my rationale in private.