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

Of course the ability score system reflects those differences. Maybe not entirely, but usually at least the dominant (+2) racial ASI represents an inherent physical or mental difference.

Orcs have more muscle and a hardier constitution -> +2 Str and +1 Con
Halflings are naturally nimble and a certain subrace is hardier -> +2 Dex and +1 Con
Gnomes are flat out more cunning ("Gnome Cunning") than other races -> +2 Int.
Elves are "magical people of otherwordly grace" -> +2 Dex
Dwarves are physically hardier and some have "keen senses & deep intuition". Keen senses, at the very least, seem like an inherent and not cultural property.
Tieflings get a Cha and Int bonus because of their physical demonic heritage. "Keener than normal intellect, as befits those linked to Asmodeus himself."

I'll concede that some ASIs seem more cultural (e.g., High Elf Int bonus or even Mountain Dwarf Str bonus), but this is not often true for both (or sometimes either) ASIs of a race.

To be honest, Halsin is right on the border of unnatural freak
He certainly didn't gain all that muscle from a diet of moss and berries like the other druids.
But we don't know much about him yet. Elves age slowly, so he could have been a slave in Thay for 50 years where he had to work the quarry.
Even an elf would build some muscle in 50 years.

But there are worse things than a two and a half meter tall muscular elven barbarian.
For example, a clean shaven dwarf...
A truly terrifying thought.

I see how this strongest point works, but it doesn't work as well as you think. Firstly, let me showcase some examples where it does not work:

1 - Dwarves reflecting their sturdier looks and beefy builds with +2 in constitution
2 - Elves and drow reflecting their alienish builds and blade mastery with +2 in dexterity
3 - Half-Orcs reflecting their muscular builds (which they got with DNA from their orcish parent) with +2 in strength
4 - Halflings reflecting their +2 dexterity in their small stature and +1 in charisma with their cultural hospitality or +1 in constitution with their dwarven blood (I think here you might start reconsidering the idea behind your statement)

Then let's pass on to some examples that are up to debate, but still mostly don't support your point:

5 - Tieflings reflecting their devilish charm with +2 in charisma and their +1 depending on the heritage (once again I suggest to reconsider if you haven't already..)
6 - Gnomes reflecting their small frames in +1 dexterity or their comparative size in +1 constitution, while also having their connection with arcane and fey (and therefore understanding and possibly brain wires) reflected in +2 in intelligence.

There are some exceptions like humans, but those once again prove the idea behind the attributes. It is literally said that humans are OK in everything. It is literally represented through their +1 to all, you might call it an inate capacity for learning or other things, but it is there FOR A REASON.

I understand the appeal of destroying something that's been carefuly created for years, but if you want to destroy it, at least offer something worthwhile and logical in return. Then I'll happily buy it.

Roles are about things that you and things that you don't do, therefore roles are about restrictions.
Therefore restrictions are good for roleplay.
Playing a role with more restrictions successfully is good roleplay.
In fact, not only are roles about restrictions, they are defined by restrictions.
For example, a healer who does not heal, is not a healer. In fact a a healer to be a healer he MUST heal. Therefore he is restrivted in that dimension, making him what he is.
Soo your assertion is patently false, and the exact opposite is true.


And yet the changes you want would deny us playing the game the way we want to play it. Curious.


But you see, conflicts of interest and conflicts arising from circumstance and birth do in fact, add spice to roleplay. That one orc forsaking his culture and family to learn wizardry will be a lot more interesting character BECAUSE of the struggles that he is going through, including his internal struggles and his slower development and more humble abilities, when compared to an elf. And yes, I think it's perfectly okay that elves can be better at magic at the end of the day, despite all the struggles of that orc mage. That's another internal struggle to come to terms with that can be SUPER INTERESTING. (Why do anything if I can't be the best). All of these are exciting opportunities for roleplay that we just couldn't have if all the races could just have the exact same stats (they largely have the same stats anyways, we're literally talking about a +1 modifier at most).

@mrfuji3 haha, we basically had the same thought, I guess my comment is obsolete now...

haha yup we did. Though we use slightly different examples and your post might have a bit more nuance, so our posts are only mostly redundant xD.

The good old false equivalency between freedom and oppression.

In one way you are free to play every race as you feel them better. You can play ten half orcs and give to each and all of them +2STR and +1CON because you feel it right. You can give +2 STR and +1CON also to that scrunny half orc that has lived all his life in slavery without ever handling a weapon, malnourished, anorexic, who have kept all his friends up and positive telling them stories about old legends and feasty heroes. That half orc who discovers just at the last moment that he have dragon blood running in his veins and he can cast magic with the same imagination he used in his stories. And it would be perfect, because the only this that matter, and I truly mean this, is that you have fun. So if for you it's fun to give a character like this 10STR and 9COS, that's great because I want you to have fun.

On the other hand, you can force every single existing player, people you never met and will never talk to, to play with the stats you decided, because it's the only right way to play. And if those people, who you'll never even meet, will goes as far as trying to create and interesting and unique character, in that case they are totally ruining your own game even if they are not even playing at your same table.

Freedom and constrictions are not the same thing.


Elves are a better wizard than orcs because they have a free cantrip (and something more IIRC), not because they have a better chance to hit with their spells. The former is an interesting feature that define elves as innate magicians, the second one does nothing but creating a miserable experience for the orc's player, because he will fail more than anyone else and, while a failure roleplaying can be interesting, a failure in fight is just "you missed, who's next?".

That's not true. Even with floating stats a orc still have its coulture, still have to betray it, still have to live a life in a foreign and possibly unforgiving environment. The background is still there without changing a single word.


A +1 in bounded accuracy is the difference between night and day. Even legendary weapons goes only as far as giving just +3. +1 is a huge difference.

To @Sansang2
Okay, I heard that you have no intention of debating with me further, so I suggest you can skip these, but I'll let them thoughts here for everyone else.


What you are describing here is a temporary condition which has nothing to do with orcs being stronger as a species than others. Give that orc a good bath, feed him some chicken thighs and give him a couple of months of social interactions and he'll be as good as new. What you did here is called an 'emotional argument', you created a dramatic image and tried to push it as logic. Can you address any of the rational arguments above?


This is simply hypocrisy in my opinion, because what you are doing is pushing your personalized feelings-based vision as a substitute for the vision that actually uses some rationale. A lot of people here agreed for you to have your fun and you can actually have it right now in the current iteration of DnD, but what you want is remaking the whole platform for yourself and a group of your like-minded comrades. The existing system already support not only your idea of fun, but also a proper world logic.


I've played DnD quite a bit and the depiction of a combat failure depends on the DM more often than not. A good DM who cares for their players will always spice your failure up and make it into something memorable.

Actually having a better chance to hit with spells DOES in fact make you a better mage.
Yes, the inherent cantrip does make the elves innately magical. I don't have a problem with that. Why does it have to be an either or between that cantrip and the ASI? It doesn't, in fact this is a typical case of more = better. It further consolidates the high elf as the arcane caster race and that's their hallmark.

Speak for yourself, I don't have a miserable experience with my suboptimal orc mage.
Also, not only is this an assertion of a universalised falsehood, but it also omits the other half of the truth, namely that it's an awesome experience for the high elf wizard.

NOBODY on this entire earth is forcing you to play an orc mage. Not a single person. Nowhere. Ever.
But orcs should have +2 STR and +1 CON anyway, and they should have -2 on INT, but they don't and that's still not enough for you even though you can basically be a totally normal mage now without any drawbacks. Not to mention the fact that the game very well might include rolling for stats so you may very well start with a 17 INT as an orc. But I suppose when that happens your problem will be that elves can start with a 19. Maybe you should just play an elf instead.

You have the freedom to choose your own role. Roles are defined by limitations and restrictions. If you want to be everything at the same time maybe you should play a shapeshifter.

Yes it is true. If the only restricting factor in playing against type is "culture" then it's not really a challange, just pick your stats and your class on lvl-up and there you go.

Given that 20 is the maximum of any attribute, this point is null and void, because you can still reach it, it will just take longer. And it's okay to have characters who are better and worse at doing the same thing.

@mrfuji3 @neprostoman
You're both making valid points of course, but I feel like I didn't properly convey my meaning. I understand that elves getting a +2 to Dexterity is supposed to represent their grace and nimbleness. My problem is that I have no concept of how much of a difference a +2 is supposed to be. Is it a mild difference in innate talent, like between an average and above average acrobat, or are we talking cats and elephants? The ability score itself is fuzzy to me, therefore the bonus is too and thus it becomes meaningless. When I look at a half-orc getting a +2 to Strength, I understand it means half-orcs are typically muscular and strong, but I see zero reason why an equally muscular elf couldn't exist and I see even less reason to punish a player who wants to play such an elf. I'd never do that as a DM and I'd prefer not to play with a DM who would. I can still see some amount of flavour in it, but in my view it's absolutely not worth the baggage that comes with it.

I must also repeat my other point - when we ignore the narrative elements of racial bonuses, what remains is a bad mechanic for a tactical crpg.

I consider this statement to be in very bad faith out of nowhere and I don't think I deserve that from you. It's not my wish to "destroy" racial bonuses because they've been around a long time, but because I genuinely think they suck for reasons I've explained. If anything my goal is to challenge the notion that racial bonuses are even a good way to convey the unique traits of a race - a notion I believe is so prevalent because we've had no alternatives in DnD for ages - when other approaches exist in contemporary game systems. And more importantly I did offer alternatives specifically for BG3, namely: keep your racial bonuses but let me start with a 17 wherever I want.

@Llengrath, you are right, you did actually offer a pretty good alternative. Sorry if my last sentence seemed extra harsh, but please let me assure you that it was not targeted at you directly, but it was rather a call for caution in any proposals made. Apart from your take, which I find more constructive than not, there were outright calls-to-arms for scrapping the whole ASI system outright and substituting it with nothing worthwhile in return.

I'd personally be fine with both a Pathfinder-like system (I've already mentioned it in this thread) and your own suggestion of unlocking the 17 start, at least if everything is thought out and properly tested and tuned.

@neprostoman fair enough, clarification noted if the latest character creator screenshots are any indication, I'm sure there's a good chance we'll both be satisfied with how BG3 handles it

@Llengrath
Well, tomorrow at the last panel from hell you can ask the developers about it

I personally plan to ask about the amount of companions in the game. And by that I mean the "companions", not the "origin characters".
Something tells me they wouldn't answer me if I wanted to know their names too

A 10 in an ability score means that a common human has a 50% chance of accomplishing a DC 10 task, DC 10 is considered pretty mundane for that reason. So that's what a +2 in an ability score does.

That means if we were playing an Elf-centric game, Humans would get -2 Dex modifier and Elves would get no modifier at all.

We might find out soon.. but perhaps rolling stats and flexible racial stats will be included?

That's actually good to know, I didn't realize that. I never watched the PFHs, only in snippets later. Might make an exception today if there'll be Q&A time.

3 and half hours to go

Now we know the answer.
It looks like the developers was using some kind of test version of the game, as the stats on the screen didn't change even when they changed the character's race.
That was the reason why the Tiefling with strength 17 could exist.
So, no rolling dices for stats.

Is it just that everyone has a 17 in their primary stat, regardless of the race, or do the stats not change at all?

Maybe they use the Tasha rules, where you can invest the +2 and +1 or whatever in any stat you like, and it automatically chooses your main stat

Here is he thing and my issue, yes orcs is on a general level stronger and sturdier, as elves is generally more agile, etc and so fourth... but i still think the we the players isnt general we are the exceptions and thus a mage orc should or could have a +2 to int, and be just as good as a high elf mage... its much much less common, but i think its fairly fair and open up all races for all classes in a much more fair way...

To make a example if you look at background in DnD 5e, its actually stated that the backgorund in PHB is just examples and something that is just a example of a urchin... and again, not all urchins in the entire world comes from the same form, its kinda retarded to think the all Urchins in the entire universe and planes all have Sleight of hands and Stealth, they could as well have survival and persuasion... its outright stated you can make your own background...

And to further this, drow are generally evil... is that seen that All drow have a intereic + to their evil axis and thus cant have certain levels of good ?... my point is yes drows is generally evil but on the rare occasion a just as good aligned drow exist, like drizzt ?!?...

Do i think there should be cultural and racial characteristics, i sure do, but i rather see it have a certain list of more loosly apropriate racial features, like for example that forest gnomes can speak with aimals, or dwarves speak has a affinity with rock stuff...

That being said, i can play eitherway, but i do like the path DnD one is taking even more so in regards to half "races"... My issue is f people want all races to be attributed by their general atributes then that should be across everything, meaning all drows is evil, since their generally evil, or atleast they cant be good since they have a plus towards evil, wich would be the same for orcs, githiyanki... right ?