D&D 5E Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)

[Umbran]

But you know what? All those who argued that getting rid of ASI were right. It allows you to make the character you want to make and that's always a good thing. You win. I am a reformed man.

I've found it very useful to take the +2 to where I want it for the character, and the +1 in a stat that's traditionally strong for the race. It helps support the race's theme, without sacrificing too much of what you want for the character.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've found it very useful to take the +2 to where I want it for the character, and the +1 in a stat that's traditionally strong for the race. It helps support the race's theme, without sacrificing too much of what you want for the character.

Or even other way around as getting that 16 in the class' primary stat is what people seem to care about. I really feel Tasha's went a bit too far with this. Being able to shift one bonus point to other stat would have been enough to satisfy the desire for 16 and would have still retained some of the flavour.

 

[ad_hoc]

You are allowed to play a Druid with a +2 wisdom bonus.

Keeping ability scores tied to race makes it special when playing against type. Without it there would be few special race and class combinations.

If 5e were designed from the start without them and races had more special abilities to distinguish them I would agree but we have the game we have.

 

[Umbran]

Keeping ability scores tied to race makes it special when playing against type. Without it there would be few special race and class combinations.

So, note that "playing against type" is really "playing against stereotype". For an entire species to have a stereotype of only really being good at one thing is part the problem they are trying to correct. Clinging to that problem is not going to be a terribly persuasive argument against the solution.

 

[billd91]

So, note that "playing against type" is really "playing against stereotype". For an entire species to have a stereotype of only really being good at one thing is part the problem they are trying to correct. Clinging to that problem is not going to be a terribly persuasive argument against the solution.

Stereotype or is it playing against archetype? Or does that distinction matter? Is the former just a negative spin on the latter?

When it comes to a non-human in a role playing game, any role playing game and not just D&D, the existence of types (stereo- or arche-) aren't problems that require correction - they're tools for setting expectations about how this race/species tends to differ from the human experience quickly and succinctly.

 

[TwoSix]

But you know what? All those who argued that getting rid of ASI were right. It allows you to make the character you want to make and that's always a good thing. You win. I am a reformed man.

Agree or disagree with your conclusions, props for reconsidering your opinion based on real-world experience and being open about it. The world needs more of that kind of behavior in general.

 

[Umbran]

When it comes to a non-human in a role playing game, any role playing game and not just D&D, the existence of types (stereo- or arche-) aren't problems that require correction....

I don't agree. Sometimes, they are problems. A role playing game, any role playing game, not just D&D, and in fact, every creative work, exists within a social context. It is not independent of that context. It interacts with that social context, and can do so in ways that aren't constructive. That's the point where it may be a problem.

What to do about that problem is usually ultimately up to the creator, as they are the ones who decide what kind of interaction they want with their social context. Sometimes you want your art to clash with the context, to make a point. Sometimes, you want the work to meld more smoothly with that context.

I don't think WotC is trying to clash with their social context. They are probably trying to enable the game to tell the stories the social context generally wants to see, because their creative work is also a commercial product.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree. It's the best compromise. Tables could choose to allow swaps or not before Tasha's, they still can albeit a bit more officially now.


I must regretfully inform you that your character concepts will still be creatively limited. A frontline fighter will be terrible if he doesn't have Relentless Endurance, as will be a rogue if he doesn't have Lucky or a ranger if he only has 25ft of movement. Hopefully, next player options book should allow you to choose your movement speed, swap your race features and any proficiencies.

Any racial feature can be seen as essentialism, and now that ASIs have been freed, other elements of race in D&D have come to the fore. There's just no reason to have fantasy races if they dont differ from each other. If anyone can be anything, they might as well all be human.

 

[billd91]

I don't agree. Sometimes, they are problems. A role playing game, any role playing game, not just D&D, and in fact, every creative work exists within a social context. It is not independent of that context. It interacts with that social context, and can do so in ways that aren't constructive. That's the point where it may be a problem.

Is that an issue with the existence of stereo-/archetype? Or with the specific content that one may have?

 

[Malmuria]

Whilst I get wanting the build flexibility that swapping ASIs bring and I also think that how 5e handles racial ASIs isn't very good to begin with, I still think the essentialism complaint is... well, weird.

These are different species. Wood elves are essentially better runners than most other species, aarakockra are essentially better flyers, drow essentially see better in the dark, merfolk are essentially better swimmers, dwarves are essentially better at resisting poisons and countless other similar things. In fact ASIs are far less essentialistic than any of these as they just give you a small bump, but you still get to represent individual variation via point buy or roll. Every wood elf is a faster runner than every dwarf, but even though half-orcs may be on average stronger than elves, some elves can still easily be stronger than some half-orcs.

People are starting to use the term species to describe different creatures, but I'm not sure that's fully worked out. Do all humanoids share a common ancestor? Is humanoid the genus? Are they able to all have offspring with each other, and can those offspring also have children? What % of their dna is common? These strike me as more questions for Sci Fi worldbuilding.

Whereas in fantasy usually the different creatures have some kind of magical origin and are fairly static in terms of any 'evolutionary' development. Given that their origins are basically just-so stories, some amount of archetypal characterization should be expected. The problem comes when your fantasy world produces (intentionally or not) and describes creatures in ways that are not only essentialist in-fiction, but take up vocabulary and figurations from harmful real-world stereotypes. For ASI I think saying that some beings are inherently more smart, for example, mimics real-world prejudice in ways that some people find uncomfortable.