I've recently been considering the phenomenon that "unusual" race-class combinations are often 1 modifier behind on their primary ability score – i.e. that they would start, using point buy or standard array, with a 15(+2) in their primary score, rather than 16 or 17 (+3). To my mind, this is a very significant mechanical effect that undesirably discourages such unusual combinations, while each race's other qualities act as much more of a nudge than a hard barrier.
I recently came across a house-rule that would address this issue, allowing any race to achieve a 16 (assuming point buy or standard array) in their classes primary ability score at character creation, and have slightly modified it to the below.
Floating Ability Score at Character Creation
During character creation, you may remove 1 point from any racial ability score bonus you gain from your base race (but not your subrace), and add it to any other ability score which does not already gain a bonus from your race or subrace.
The original rule allowed this movement from any racial ability score, including from subraces. I have changed that because:
- It avoids breaking the balance of the Mountain Dwarf subrace, whose traits are designed to work against each other, and they do so much less if you can swap a point of STR for another stat
- Subraces are already thematically sparser than base races; the ASI is often 1 of only 2 defining traits – and you already get to pick between several subrace options anyway
I think even with that change this rule still achieves the desired goal of letting less traditional race/class combos not fall behind in their primary stat.
Are there any serious foreseeable balance issues that would arise from using this house-rule?
Best Answer
Carefully consider what problem you are trying to solve
In 5e races are not that mechanically different. They have slightly different base stats, and maybe a few bonus special features, that's all. By reducing mechanical differences between races, you are making every choice less interesting. There needs to be meaningful choices for there to be meaningful decisions. With more homogeneity between races comes less creativity, since each decision is less important.
Stats reflect the unique physiology and heritage of different species. A goliaths are huge muscly, a halflings are small and sneaky. One is more suited to being a rogue, one is more suited to being a barbarian. But that doesn't mean goliath rogues and halfling barbarians don't exist.
People already play imperfect class/race combinations. A lot of people do, perhaps even most people. 1 or 2 points in a main stat isn't a huge barrier. The question is why are your players not making creative characters?
Perhaps your players are fans of other forms of media, a player may be inspired by a favorite book, another by a tv show, and a third by a movie. All of this media probably portrays similar archetypes - the elf archer, the human wizard, the halfling rogue, the dwarven fighter, etc. It could be that your players are perfectly happy playing within these archetypes, they may have no desire to make a gnome barbarian or loxodon rogue.
As for balance, I'm sure you know this, but it's a buff for any unusual class/race combination, and nerfs any class/race combination that currently works well.
Be sure that your players are truly feeling limited by the race mechanics, as altering them will make races less special, and that will make players who built to their race's strengths feel less special too.