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

Rather I want to understand, why having started moving toward the universality, they stoped at halfway. At the same time putting some races at a disadvantage.

Because it would make the character creation process way longer. One of the focus of 5e, among fun and narrative, is the ease of play.

You don't have to look to a list of features that a few splatbooks later become thousands to create your character. Pick a race, pick a class, you are ready to go. In the next edition they are moving subclasses for all classes to third level, in this way a lv1 character is easier.

For the same reason there are not many choices when you level up. At the moment I'm playing a campaign of pathfinder, which is a system I don't like, and every time we level up is atrocious because nobody is interested in the game system, feats and shit, so I have to level up everyone's character because me and the master are the only rules savy of the group. Sadly the master refuse to DM anything else so...

That all races should have equal level of synergy with all classes is a position nobody in this thread is trying to defend, I believe. The argument is: yes, races should be different, but racial bonuses are the wrong way to do it. Half-orcs will still make better barbarians than elves because of their Savage Attacks and Relentless Endurance, but these features aren't wasted on a cleric or druid. The key difference here is encouragement vs discouragement. Having an interesting feature encourages you to prefer a half-orc barbarian, while starting with a numerical disadvantage discourages you from playing a half-orc cleric.

I dont think this property is in game ...

But i must admit it seemed a little odd in last PFH, when

So. Its pity that the balance and game system sacrificed for casualness. Only races +2/+1 medium size remained playable. Yes. This is simple. All others is turned in meaningless garbage. Now I regret that I bought game on pre-order. Although friends warn me to wait for release. And you right. Pathfinder much better for smart player. This is not to mention LGBT issues and bear theme. Disappointing.

laughs in lucky halfling divination wizard

Pathfinder has literally moved on from strict racial bonuses.

Mmm... Can you specify in what class does human excel all others? Especially in current set of rules?

None, just as it did before when it received a +1 to everything. The spear/polearm proficiency it received instead is terrible and I hope they change that before release, still wishing for variant human with +1/+1. If you want to argue Larian should've done more to balance the races after removing the bonuses, I agree and I'm right there with you. That doesn't mean removing the ASI was in itself a move in the wrong direction.

I am happy with the changes because an elf sorcerer is my favorite to play!

Move in direction that leads nowhere. Just give advantage for some races and more disadvantage for others. As said before this movement will not be pointless, if lead to possibilities for all. Now it introduce possibilities for some. At the cost of disadvantages for others. And if you preffered race benefits from this - bingo, you win. Thats all.

Why wouldn't you play a half-orc cleric just because you don't get a bonus to wis? Why can you only play classes with optimal stat distribution? That, to me, seems like a much bigger shortcoming in the system.

These decisions should be a difficulty option toggle, some people want to play closer to the vanilla ruleset.
Now that stats are whatever in distribution regarding race, don't understand why not include variant human? Does Larian fear that a single feat will demolish their balance? Like they gave way leeway with some other stuff that I would consider more broken like the free respec and free multiclass.

You're right, sadly the system feels limited that way. For comparison, racial bonuses aren't nearly as limiting in Pillars of Eternity because in that game the effectiveness of your class doesn't depend on any single ability, so you don't need to have Intellect above a certain threshold on your Wizard in order to feel viable.

Here's the thing: per base rules you can only achieve a 16 (+3 bonus) if you receive at least a +1 from race and starting with a 15 is terrible. The entirety of DnD5e is balanced around the assumption that you will start with a +3 bonus to your main thing. All companion characters reflect this too, having a 16 or 17 in their primary ability. Therefore, starting with a 16 Wisdom as a half-orc cleric puts you right on curve, whereas if you start with a 15 you will forever be behind Shadowheart.

All of them? O_o

Lets take minmaxing Monk for example ...
8-15-15-8-15-8

Curent build: 9-16-16-9-16-9
Meaning you have: +3 on Dex, +3 on Con, +3 on Wis
And nothing else.

New build: 8-17-15-8-16-8 ... or 8-17-16-8-15-8
Meaning you have: +3 on Dex, +2 on Con, +3 on Wis ... or +3 on Dex, +3 on Con, +2 on Wis
+ You get Light Armor proficiency ... if you dont wish to loose your Monk abilities, you cant use armor >> useless
+ You get polearmor proficiency ... if you dont wish to loose your Monk Abilities, you cant use Two-Handed weapons >> useless

Curent build have 1 more AC, 1 more chance to suceed on saving throw (or more hp) and his oponents will have it 1 point harder to resist his effects.

Wich is better?
Same goes for every other class.

Ok. Take any other medium size race. Same +2/+1 but plus many other racial benefits. And which is better?

Ok ...

Half-Elf ...
Oh come on, you gotta now that will be my pick. :P

They have +2 to Charisma, and +1 to two ability scores you choose.
All their other racial bonuses remain same in both cases, so there is no reason to care about them, since they dont make difference.

Barbarian / Fighter / Paladin
- Clasic: 16 - 16 - 15 - 8 - 8 - 10 >> +3, +3, +2, -2, -2, 0 ... better
- New: 17 - 16 - 15 - 8 - 8 - 8 >> +3, +3, +2, -2, -2, -2 ...

Bard / Sorcerer / Warlock
- Clasic: 8 - 16 - 16 - 8 - 8 - 17 >> -2, +3, +3, -2, -2, +3 ... better
- New: 8 - 16 - 15 - 8 - 8 - 17 >> -2, +3, +2, -2, -2, +3 ...

Cleric / Druid / Monk / Ranger / Rogue
- Clasic: 8 - 15 - 16 - 8 - 16 - 10 >> -2, +2, +3, -2 +3, 0 ... better
- New: 8 - 15 - 16 - 8 - 17 - 8 >> -2, +2, +3, -2 +3, -2 ...

Wizard
- Clasic: 8 - 16 - 15 - 16 - 8 - 10 >> -2, +3, +2, +3, -2, 0 ... better
- New: 8 - 16 - 15 - 17 - 8 - 8 >> -2, +3, +2, +3, -2, -2

See?
There is no gain ... you are only loosing.

A better way to solve this "issue" is by letting you roll for stats (or just outright choose your attributes) where you are most likely to roll atleast one 16 which can be placed at your discretion.

No. Take human and any of +2/+1 mid sized races. New method. Compare. Who will be better in any case?

I dont need to compare anything ...

Their stats will be same, ane Humans get nothing usefull on top of that.
Such comparsion have no meaning, it should be obvious.

You dont even have to specificy that to mid-sized races ... even tho small-races have less movement, they allways have something that ballances things out ...
Humans dont ...

Anything compared to Humans in this new method will be better ...
Maybe except summoned companions. xD

While I maintain that races should be different and that this should also be reflected in ASI, I am actually going to be fine.
Humans just became way more interesting to me through this change because they literally get no power gimmicks and you have to rely entirely on your ability to build a character and not a powertool.
You just made roleplaying a human a lot more interesting by reducing every other race to a powergrab.