D&D 5E What To Do With Racial ASIs?

[jmartkdr2]

This is what I don't understand. You are saying that a 5% difference is enough to alter the game, force the hand of many people to change the conception of their character (one they might play for years), and change the long standing rules of the game.
5%?! One magic item - boom, that 5% difference is gone. Multi attack, boom the difference is gone. Any hosts of feats, boom the difference is gone. Oh man, the cleric gave the other party members a bless spell, now my 5% is really really gone! Sneak attack, now my damage is not 5% better than the rogues, dang it, my 5% is gone.

That is why I do not understand your side of the argument. I understand if someone wants to get rid of ASI's because they feel it reflects real world problems. I understand and sympathize with that. But to say rework the entire system for 5% because the min/maxers want things balanced in a game that is already unbalanced - I cannot understand that. Especially knowing how intelligent everyone on these boards happen to be.

So you will have to forgive me. I do not understand.

PS - I do understand that it is not exactly 5%. I am using that as a standard basis for a +1 modifier.

The problem is a perception one - that +1 bonus might not make a big difference in overall rates of success, but you will look at that number every time you roll for it. So Starting with, say, a +2 instead of a +3 is going to be obvious every time you attack.

It also means you get less feats, since you really don't want to have a +2 ability mods to hit at 6th level. This can be mitigated by spells or magic items, but most people build their characters assuming that no particular magic item will be available. If your dm definitely gives out +X weapons that might change things, but most dm's I've seen(or who post about it on any of the various fora) avoid such items as much as possible.

In other words, that number is small from everyone else's perspective, but not the player's.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The problem is a perception one - that +1 bonus might not make a big difference in overall rates of success, but you will look at that number every time you roll for it. So Starting with, say, a +2 instead of a +3 is going to be obvious every time you attack.

It also means you get less feats, since you really don't want to have a +2 ability mods to hit at 6th level. This can be mitigated by spells or magic items, but most people build their characters assuming that no particular magic item will be available. If your dm definitely gives out +X weapons that might change things, but most dm's I've seen(or who post about it on any of the various fora) avoid such items as much as possible.

In other words, that number is small from everyone else's perspective, but not the player's.

I understand why players may feel this way, because when they fail by that 1 point, that is what they remember.

For example, in your standard adventuring day, you might average 20 rounds of combat. That +1 bonus means hitting one more time than without it (and +1 damage, which is also important). That 1 additional hit might save your life, or it might not... shrug

It really is not much of a difference IMO. Granted, how "important" it is is completely in the eyes of the player. As I said, the difference wouldn't be important to me, but others might certainly feel different!

There's no arguing the +1 is good to have, but just how important it is really is matter of perspective.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I understand why players may feel this way, because when they fail by that 1 point, that is what they remember.

For example, in your standard adventuring day, you might average 20 rounds of combat. That +1 bonus means hitting one more time than without it (and +1 damage, which is also important). That 1 additional hit might save your life, or it might not... shrug

It really is not much of a difference IMO. Granted, how "important" it is is completely in the eyes of the player. As I said, the difference wouldn't be important to me, but others might certainly feel different!

There's no arguing the +1 is good to have, but just how important it is really is matter of perspective.

The one die roll where it might matter (ie that 8 would have hit if you had one more point) will come up about once every 20 rolls, meaning it will probably come up in any given adventuring day where you make at least ten rolls using the stat...

If you're the sort of player who would notice it at all, it looms rather large. Hence the rather large perception that you 'need' a +3 in your main ability score.

Since any fix that involves changing 'how players behave' or 'removing players who play a very common way' is doomed to fail, I look for a way to sidestep the issue (and for me, preferably with the least amount of trickle effects on the rest of the game.) Floating mods are the simplest answer that fits to solve the problem I'm personally trying to address (players feeling like certain race/class combos are off limits). The fact that it also helps reduce the perception of race essentialism in the game is a plus, but was never really a goal of mine.

(Honestly I don't think you can really 'fix' that without either getting rid of character races entirely, and at that point it's not DnD, or making combating racism a core theme of the story, which is massively more narratively restrictive than DnD has ever gotten close to being...)

 

[DND_Reborn]

The one die roll where it might matter (ie that 8 would have hit if you had one more point) will come up about once every 20 rolls, meaning it will probably come up in any given adventuring day where you make at least ten rolls using the stat...

If you're the sort of player who would notice it at all, it looms rather large. Hence the rather large perception that you 'need' a +3 in your main ability score.

Yep.

Floating mods are the simplest answer that fits to solve the problem I'm personally trying to address (players feeling like certain race/class combos are off limits)

And for people who want them moved away, it is the easiest fix. Although similar to bumping point-buy and standard array, finding a way to bump rolling is not, so floating is the simplest alternative.

But that doesn't solve the issue when people feel that halflings shouldn't be as strong as orcs, etc.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yep.


And for people who want them moved away, it is the easiest fix. Although similar to bumping point-buy and standard array, finding a way to bump rolling is not, so floating is the simplest alternative.

But that doesn't solve the issue when people feel that halflings shouldn't be as strong as orcs, etc.

Describing ASI’s as an abstraction does though.

16 str halfing vs 16 str Goliath

Halfing is exceptionally strong due to training and background and despite his race. Goliath is strong due to race, class and background.

Same score, different explanations.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Describing ASI’s as an abstraction does though.

16 str halfing vs 16 str Goliath

Halfing is exceptionally strong due to training and background and despite his race. Goliath is strong due to race class and background.

Same score, different explanations.

It doesn't work for me. What about a goliath who has similar training and background than the halfling? Surely they would be even stronger?

 

[FrogReaver]

It doesn't work for me. What about a goliath who has similar training and background than the halfling? Surely they would be even stronger?

Sure. But you can’t make such a Goliath.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure. But you can’t make such a Goliath.

Why though? If such a person could logically exist, but the rules don't allow it, then the rules fail.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why though? If such a person could logically exist, but the rules don't allow it, then the rules fail.

You are trying for a simulationist perspective. Drop that and approach from a gamist perspective.

Character creation is not about making all possible characters, it becomes about making a party of characters that are roughly balanced to be able to play together and all contribute.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You are trying for a simulationist perspective. Drop that and approach from a gamist perspective.

No! That is exactly what I don't want to do. But yeah, I guess you managed to to find the core of the disagreement...