In Eberron: Rising from the Last War, the changeling race says the following (p. 18):

Ability Score Improvement. Your Charisma score increases by 2. In addition, one ability score of your choice increases by 1.

Can you choose Charisma again for your additional +1, for a total of +3 to Charisma? It seems a bit cheeky to me, since no other race can have a +3 at character creation, but on the other hand, the two sentences do seem to be rather deliberately disjointed. It's not like the wording of the half-elf's ability score improvement, as this Q&A explains, so does that mean that gaining a +3 to Charisma is a legitimate choice?

Obviously this is assuming that a DM doesn't insist otherwise, and we are also assuming that this won't allow an ability score to go above 20.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Noteworthy, so far Changeling is the only race that has the wording "any +1" as all other races with "any" state "any other +1" or "any other two unique.+1" \$\endgroup\$ – findusl Jul 4 at 0:42


+3 to Charisma is a legitimate choice and also slightly better than adding the +1 to a different stat most of the time. It's also not a typo but intentional, as evidenced by Crawford agreeing that's what the rules say:

Q: Is it intentional that Changelings can put their floating +1 in charisma giving them a +3 to charisma ASI? — ProfNesbitt, Nov 21 2019

A: A changeling sure can. — Jeremy Crawford, Nov 21 2019

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I would argue that Crawford didn't confirmed that it was intentional, only that the RAW supports this interpretation. \$\endgroup\$ – Alex Millette Jul 3 at 12:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ @AlexMillette You would be absolutely correct about that, but Crawford's answers and what is taken from them are often at odds in this manner and I'm trying not to draw attention to it because it makes people upset and isn't really relevant to this question. Furthermore, Crawford's claims as to what the rules are, as written, correspond much better to a model of what the developers might have wanted the rules to be, than the actuality of the text. \$\endgroup\$ – Please stop being evil Jul 3 at 15:42
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Crawford's claim that this is RAW is, in fact, evidence that it is intended and, I think, it's better evidence that it is intentional than that it is the RAW, though in this case it happens to be RAW as well. That's why I used such careful language around what the quote shows: I say it evidences that this is intentional, not that he says it's intentional, nor that it "proves" that or anything like that. \$\endgroup\$ – Please stop being evil Jul 3 at 15:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Pleasestopbeingevil You are, though, strongly claiming that it is not a typo, but intentional, and the only evidence you have is that tweet. I would put a likely in that sentence just so you are actually careful on your statement. :P \$\endgroup\$ – HellSaint Jul 3 at 17:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ @HellSaint The question starts "Is it intentional" and the answer is affirmative. So I would say that tweet is very strong evidence that it is intentional \$\endgroup\$ – Caleth Aug 4 at 15:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.