D&D (2024) (+) New Edition Changes for Inclusivity (discuss possibilities)

[Deset Gled]

I think that the str and dex based fighting styles point to the underlining problem. What about an Int based one? or a Cha one based on trickery? What about the amazing all rounder that's stronger than the fast guy, faster than the strong guy, more intelligent than the natural athlete, and so on. The game system is really bad at simulating a great fighter that relies on all his strengths put together being stronger than they'd be on their own.

Now you can actually have that with the more traditional system, but only if you're comfortable with having a new class/subclass and feats built around each of these concepts. Which leads to system bloat and complexity, and that's something that DnD has been trying to get away from for a while. Or you can start to distance ability scores from the most important class abilities and your fighting style becomes more about how you visualize your character.

First, I primarily play 3.5e, and have literally played warriors based off of every ability score. I'm completely comfortable with it. I have no problems visualizing my characters as I see fit.

Second, this is still a discussion entirely about rules complexity and simulationism, not about inclusivity.

 

[Cadence]

First, I primarily play 3.5e, and have literally played warriors based off of every ability score. I'm completely comfortable with it. I have no problems visualizing my characters as I see fit.

Second, this is still a discussion entirely about rules complexity and simulationism, not about inclusivity.

It is off of inclusivity, but now I'm curious how you visualized your CON based warrior being just as effective at hitting and damaging things as someone with a high STR or DEX used traditionally (who might also have a close to your CON). Or how you pictured your CHR based warrior as effectively attacking mindless undead, automatons, and oozes as a traditionally based one. [And how the rules options were modified, if at all, to allow CON and CHR to be the primary attack abilities].

 

[GreenTengu]

If you want a high CHR but low STR and DEX character who is just as good in combat as the high STR and DEX character but also good great at acting, is it also reasonable for someone to ask for a high STR but low INT and CHR character who is just as good in spell casting as the high INT and WIS character but also great at stacking rocks?

I really don't see much of an issue here. I honestly think there is a better argument for ranged attacks to use Wisdom for attack bonus and damage bonus when it comes to ranged attacks. The stat that covers perception and willpower, thus breath control, has a lot more to do with accurately hitting a target precisely for maximum effect than one's ability to juggle or tumble. Having AC, Attack Bonus and Damage bonus all derived from the same ability score is just counter-productive to having rounded characters in the game at all, especially when you also derive initiative from that stat and have it used for more than a third of the saving throws characters ever made and have it rule over all of the critical Rogue skills too.

It is why all Rogue subclasses beyond the initial one have all been garbage-- because the class is so entirely balanced around boosting up one ability score and dumping the rest that just switching out abilities and forcing the class to be multi-ability dependent is always going to suck. Thus we can never have any diversity when it comes to Rogues. Dexterity is just too wildly imbalanced when it comes to the amount of the game ruled over by that one stat.

How can we ever have diversity in builds when one ability score dictates your success rate with the majority of the rolls you are going to make during the course of the game?

But a lot of games have significant portions devoted to things besides combat. Why is combat the only thing where abilities should be completely interchangeable? Why can't the high CHR (low STR) character also be great at stacking rocks, the high CHR (low DEX) character be great at acrobatics, the high STR (low CHR) character be great at acting , and the high STR (low INT) character be great at math and research? At some point, if CHR isn't needed for acting, and STR isn't needed for rock-stacking, and INT isn't needed to be a wizard, and CHR can let you punch just as hard as STR, you essentially have made ability scores meaningless except for cinematically describing the character. As I've said before, at that point I'd argue that you don't actually want to play Dungeons and Dragons, you actually seem to want some other game.

I have never seen any D&D game where non-combat rolls were made anywhere as frequently as non-combat rules. When it comes to skill challenges, there are a smattering of times when you need to use certain skills to get through an adventure. The Charisma-based Persuasion skill might be more commonly utilized than most other skills. There have been a whole lot less Strength-based skill challenges in this edition than in previous ones, perhaps as a direct result of having virtually nullified Strength as you can substitute Dexterity in for it virtually all of the time.

On the other hand-- Intelligence skills are just entirely worthless. Every single Intelligence skill pretty much comes down to "I don't know what to do next, DM-- give me more hints." And, frankly, if you fail? Well-- if you still can't figure it out, the DM will be forced to provide more hints regardless or you will all sit there all night twiddling your thumbs. And that is assuming the DM has even prepared any more information to give you at all. There is virtually never a situation where any of the Intelligence skills is going to be key to success or even give one a significant advantage.

As a result, the only 5E characters who don't have Intelligence as their worst stat are the ones that use it for spellcasting. In which case-- why even call the stat "Intelligence", why not just call it what it is-- "Magic Power.... if you are a Wizard or Warlock." Because it in no way functions as Intelligence in any other manner, it is the intelligence and experience of the player at the table that dictates the character's actual Intelligence.

Given how generally screwed up these ability scores are in general-- why is anyone even defending them continuing to rule over and dictate a character's ability to succeed at anything? Why not just refer to the skills instead?

 

[Cadence]

I really don't see much of an issue here. I honestly think there is a better argument for ranged attacks to use Wisdom for attack bonus and damage bonus when it comes to ranged attacks. The stat that covers perception and willpower, thus breath control, has a lot more to do with accurately hitting a target precisely for maximum effect than one's ability to juggle or tumble.

Dexterity has also traditionally included hand-eye coordination. A person with good hand-eye coordination seems like they might be good with a bow or dagger to me. A perceptive strong-willed person without hand-eye coordination feels like they'll struggle in a game of darts.

How can we ever have diversity in builds when one ability score dictates your success rate with the majority of the rolls you are going to make during the course of the game?

By spending more time worry about role-playing than worrying about how a +1 bonus you're missing in the roll-playing that only has an effect on average once every 20 rolls to hit?

On the other hand-- Intelligence skills are just entirely worthless. Every single Intelligence skill pretty much comes down to "I don't know what to do next, DM-- give me more hints."

I've never seen someone ask the DM for hints about what to do next. Do you count seeing if you can recall a historical detail based on a lore skill or to see if you can identify a symbol as a hint?

As you note, Int is used for spell casting... and it was formerly used for number of skill points and languages and the like. Spell attack roll modifiers and saving throw DCs feel like they're somewhat important. It certainly was a lot bigger impact in 3.5 when it came with bonus spells. I haven't played a ton of 5e. Do you find the ability scores a lot more annoying in it than previous editions?

Because it in no way functions as Intelligence in any other manner, it is the intelligence and experience of the player at the table that dictates the character's actual Intelligence.

There have been some other threads where new names for INT and WIS have come up (partially for concerns about ableism). It would be hard to stop writing INT and WIS for a while (like when the new year changes and one is writing dates), but I could see something like Recall and Awareness instead, for example. (It feels like there were suggestions I liked better, but I don't remember them). It feels like that would still fit with their other skill uses to.

Given how generally screwed up these ability scores are in general-- why is anyone even defending them continuing to rule over and dictate a character's ability to succeed at anything? Why not just refer to the skills instead?

I know why I bother. I have enjoyed playing the game with that as a major part of the rules for decades. I have especially enjoyed 1e, 2e, 3.5, and PF. (4 not so much, 5 is fine). I've also played games with other stat set-ups (or lack thereof) and enjoyed them for what they were. Something different and not D&D.

Why are you even playing D&D since it doesn't let you do want you want in terms of race-class combinations, has a basic character description engine you hate, and results in all kinds of character outcomes that are too narrow or garbagey?

 

[Deset Gled]

It is off of inclusivity, but now I'm curious how you visualized your CON based warrior being just as effective at hitting and damaging things as someone with a high STR or DEX used traditionally (who might also have a close to your CON). Or how you pictured your CHR based warrior as effectively attacking mindless undead, automatons, and oozes as a traditionally based one. [And how the rules options were modified, if at all, to allow CON and CHR to be the primary attack abilities].

Without hunting down any specific builds, a Deepwarden from Races of Stone, a 3.0e Psychic Warrior, and the classic Dwarven Defender on a cart all make good Con based warriors. Cha warriors other than rogues would typically be Paladins (or PrC variants) or an Iaijutsu Warrior.

 

[GreenTengu]

By spending more time worry about role-playing than worrying about how a +1 bonus you're missing in the roll-playing that only has an effect on average once every 20 rolls to hit?

That +1 on D20 rolls makes a big difference in one's percentage chance of success. If the person with the +1 needs a 10 to succeed, the person without has 10% less chance of succeeding. If the person with the +1 needs a 15 to succeed, the person without the +1 has a 20% less chance of success. If the person with the +1 needs a 19 to succeed, the person without it has only 50% chance of success.

If you just do the basic math, you would see that it matters a whole lot more than 1 in 20 rolls.

And you have entirely discounted the bonus to damage-- and damage is generally rolls on a die ranging from D4 to 2d6-- never anything as large as a D20.

Since you think it doesn't matter at all-- how about playing your next game with a character who has ability scores of all 8 and see how much of a difference it actually makes.

I've never seen someone ask the DM for hints about what to do next. Do you count seeing if you can recall a historical detail based on a lore skill or to see if you can identify a symbol as a hint?

Absolutely. You are asking the DM to provide you with information you do not currently have-- assuming the DM prepared any in advance. And you would only be making that roll if you were unsure what you were supposed to make of the symbols-- if they were somehow relevant to the plot. In such a situation you are explicitly asking the DM for a hint as to what you are meant to do with whatever the object the symbol is printed on.

The DM could have just told you what the symbol meant straight-up or told you what the object is directly, and various DMs would. The fact that you have to make a roll to ask for more information means that they hid the answer behind a bit of a puzzle. And you are asking for a hint by making that roll instead of experimenting.

The only other reason you would possibly be asking the DM what some symbol may mean if it is not on an object that you are expected to utilize somehow to advance the plot and the answer isn't apparent to you yet is if it was meant to be an irrelevant symbol on something and you are testing to see how much detail the DM added to the world or can come up with on the fly.

As you note, Int is used for spell casting... and it was formerly used for number of skill points and languages and the like. Spell attack roll modifiers and saving throw DCs feel like they're somewhat important. It certainly was a lot bigger impact in 3.5 when it came with bonus spells. I haven't played a ton of 5e. Do you find the ability scores a lot more annoying in it than previous editions?

And it has none of these functions now-- rendering it pretty useless except in cases where you are indirectly asking the DM for hints as to how to advance the plot. Hints they would probably give you eventually anyway.

 

[Cadence]

Without hunting down any specific builds, a Deepwarden from Races of Stone, a 3.0e Psychic Warrior, and the classic Dwarven Defender on a cart all make good Con based warriors. Cha warriors other than rogues would typically be Paladins (or PrC variants) or an Iaijutsu Warrior.

Thanks.

I see where the Deepwarden adds their Con in place of Dex for AC. but didn't see where Deepwarden, Psychic Warrior, or Dwarven Defender actually uses the the Con bonus in place of Str or Dex for attacking. Similarly I didn't see an option for a Rogue, Paladin, or Iaijutsu warrior to use Chr in place of Str or Dex for attacking.

Googling after those, I did find a paladin feature that lets Chr add extra temporarily for attack, a 4e feat to use any ability for any basic attacks, and a 5e option that lets Warlocks use Chr.

 

[roger semerad]

First, I primarily play 3.5e, and have literally played warriors based off of every ability score. I'm completely comfortable with it. I have no problems visualizing my characters as I see fit.

Second, this is still a discussion entirely about rules complexity and simulationism, not about inclusivity.

How your ability scores interact with your class abilities definitely affect inclusivity. For instance, I'm a furry and every character I'd make would be a Tabaxi. Tabaxi's come with a +2 to Dex and a +1 to cha. If I wanted to play a Barbarian my abilities don't line up at all. I could still make one and have some success with them, but I'd always know I picked a sub optimal build and feel some negative feelings about that. That feeling would then increase if my character died during play. Did that death happen because my character was deficient? It would be difficult to say, but I'd always wonder. A certain amount of risk of death is something most tables has to deal with, but with that risk comes the desire to mitigate it as much as possible through optimal character generation and play.

This extends to any character idea that someone might be strongly attached to. If you really want to play a wizard who accessed magic through willpower ( in 5th edition that would be wisdom ) then you'd have to make an sub optimal build. You could make tons of variants to allow any combination to work, but that adds to the complexity of the system. Personally I'm a 4th edition fan and would love for a power based combat system to come back, with every fighting style given completely different powers that work fundamentally different, but D&D has moved to a more simple system. To allow the all the different character concepts, without making any clearly worse at their job and without adding any more complexity, your going to have to have ability scores become more abstract.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I am familiar with some tech types getting away from the "master/slave" naming convention. I think I first saw that over a decade ago. But I haven't run across anything yet that pushes for removal of the word "master" by itself. I was under the impression that the presence of "slave" is what made the convention improper, as "master" by itself has a lot more (non-racist) uses. IIRC, some of the "master/slave" alternatives still use "master/minion" or similar.

Can you expand a bit on why Game Master (or Dungeon Master) is problematic for you?

Not mirrorball man, but we did run into a reason to change our DM's name a while back.

She was making a joke about Dungeon Master being too masculine, but Dungeon Mistress gave all the wrong vibes. Someone said Dungeon Manager and she immediately changed her title, because we all thought it was both hilarious and far more accurate.

I mean, let us be frank for a second. A) Master is a masculine term B) None of us DMs are really the masters of the game.

The problem with this is some people like working with limitations - they encourage creativity.
I also personally struggle with the concept of a Str 18 goblin or gnome, never mind 20.

I want to use this post as a small jumping off point for a second. Because I keep hearing this, and by serendipity I heard something that is not only the opposite, but seems to be a great example. (I saw this before @Cadence post which would have also worked)

A typical halfling or Gnome is about 2 to 3 ft tall, a creature of similar height? Chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are also quite a lot stronger than your average human, because of the way their muscles work (current guesses for the reasoning include that they have more explosive strength, but less endurance and fine motor control).

Now, I don't want to get into the science of biology and muscles, I just want to point out that in terms of size in feet compared to strength, this isn't as absurd as people keep making it out to be.

*----------------------------
I also want to take a moment to think about an aspect of Green Tengu's argument that I feel like hits closer to a real issue.

Non-combat vs combat.

I feel like the biggest part of what is being talking about on Tengu's side is not having to sacrifice combat capability in exchange for the more fun non-combat stuff. Like being a charming rogue like Solo.

Now, I can already feel people wanting to talk about sacrificing for concept, and how you can't get something for nothing, but there is something here. I have two characters who I remember building for very story heavy reasons. One was for a game that I didn't even know if we would have combat (it was very experimental for me to play in, but I love it) and the other I knew we would have combat, but I also knew we had some players who did not know the rules as well as I did, and that the non-combat stuff would be a more fun section for me anways. They were my Druid and Warlock respectively. But, something notable happened both times.

For the Druid, as I was building them, I had the choice of a feat, and I took Magic Initiate. I did this so I could combine Shillelagh and Booming Blade. So that I could be an effective, at-will damage dealer and actually this character is often right on the frontlines with our barbarian. But I did this very specifically so that no matter what else I did, I would be good at combat. I had one fallback trick, guaranteed.

And for the warlock? You guessed it, Agonizing Blast. Because with that and Hex, at the very least, I had a single, guaranteed fall back combat option.


This was all for making sure I was good at combat, but that is harder to do for certain classes. It is hard to play a brainy fighter, needing the physical stats to make sure you are effective in combat prevents a lot of things like the intelligent commander or the charismatic mercenary leader. Because those are your third choices at best. A rogue almost has to be good at Dex, even if you are really more interested in the non-magical skills of an investigator archetype, you need Dex, because you need to be decent at combat.


I don't have a solution to this problem. I don't think there has ever been a satisfactory solution to this problem, but I can see Tengu's point leading to the possibility of having a class that is made for the non-combat sections, but can still carry their mechanical weight when combat inevitably springs up.

How your ability scores interact with your class abilities definitely affect inclusivity. For instance, I'm a furry and every character I'd make would be a Tabaxi. Tabaxi's come with a +2 to Dex and a +1 to cha. If I wanted to play a Barbarian my abilities don't line up at all. I could still make one and have some success with them, but I'd always know I picked a sub optimal build and feel some negative feelings about that. That feeling would then increase if my character died during play. Did that death happen because my character was deficient? It would be difficult to say, but I'd always wonder. A certain amount of risk of death is something most tables has to deal with, but with that risk comes the desire to mitigate it as much as possible through optimal character generation and play.

This extends to any character idea that someone might be strongly attached to. If you really want to play a wizard who accessed magic through willpower ( in 5th edition that would be wisdom ) then you'd have to make an sub optimal build. You could make tons of variants to allow any combination to work, but that adds to the complexity of the system. Personally I'm a 4th edition fan and would love for a power based combat system to come back, with every fighting style given completely different powers that work fundamentally different, but D&D has moved to a more simple system. To allow the all the different character concepts, without making any clearly worse at their job and without adding any more complexity, your going to have to have ability scores become more abstract.

One thing I loved, and your post made me think of them, Shifters are a great concept. They are a single race, but they have four different stat arrays. I think a floating ASI is easier, but you could also have some races that are a bit more diverse than two subraces.

Like, taking some random dwarf-y sounding names

Stonewardens get con, str
Metal Singers get wis, cha
ect

And I realize, this is likely also just what the ancestry stuff is. Ah well, 1 AM, and I'm getting tired

 

[Cadence]

That +1 on D20 rolls makes a big difference in one's percentage chance of success. If the person with the +1 needs a 10 to succeed, the person without has 10% less chance of succeeding. If the person with the +1 needs a 15 to succeed, the person without the +1 has a 20% less chance of success. If the person with the +1 needs a 19 to succeed, the person without it has only 50% chance of success.

If you just do the basic math, you would see that it matters a whole lot more than 1 in 20 rolls.

It's a 1 in 20 rolls difference in the chance of hitting. (I apologize if you meant they needed to get a 10 total instead of just roll one, for example. It doesn't particularly change the story).

A person rolling a d20+1 rolls 10+ (gets 11+) with probability 11/20. A d20 gets 11+ with probability 10/20.
11/20 - 10/20 = 1/20 =5%

A person rolling a d20+1 rolls 15+ (gets 16+) with probability 6/20. A d20 gets 16+ with probability 5/20.
6/20 - 5/20 = 1/20 = 5%

A person rolling a d20+1 rolls 19+ (gets 20+) with probability 2/20. A d20 gets 20+ with probability 1/20.
2/20 - 1/20 = 1/20 = 5%

The difference in probability of success in each case is a difference in 1 out of 20 rolls. It doesn't matter what the target number was.

It looks like you were calculating 1 - P(+0)/P(+1) and rounding it. Those feel like they behave oddly and I don't see them that often. Would it be the percent of obtained hits you'd lose if you switched back to +0? The value for a +1 sword trying to get an 19+ is 1 - 1/20 / 2/20 = 1 - 0.5 = 0.5 = 50%. The value for a +6 sword trying to get a 15+ is also 1 - 6/12 / 12/20 = 1 - 0.5 = 50%. It feels strange to me to say a +1 sword has the same affect when trying to get a 19+ as a +6 one has when trying to get a 15+. The +6 sword changes the roll from a miss to a hit on 6/20 rolls. The +1 sword only changes it on 1/20 rolls.

And you have entirely discounted the bonus to damage-- and damage is generally rolls on a die ranging from D4 to 2d6-- never anything as large as a D20.

That is true.

For each round of combat, the difference in expected damage delivered (disregarding criticals) is

Needing a 11+ = 11/20 * (4.5+1) - 10/20*(4.5) = 0.775
Needing a 16+ = 6/20 * (4.5+1) - 5/20*(4.5) = 0.525
Needing a 20+ = 2/20 * (4.5+1) - 6/20*(4.5) = 0.325

In the 2d6 case they would be 0.9, 0.65, and 0.45. In the d4 case 0.675, 0.425, 0.225. So, something from close to 1 point of extra damage missed on average each round to something close to 1 point of damage every 4 rounds on average.

Since you think it doesn't matter at all-- how about playing your next game with a character who has ability scores of all 8 and see how much of a difference it actually makes.

How on earth did it go from a character with a standard stat array (around 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) to one around (8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8) !?!?!?

They typical race bonuses are a +2 and a +1. So if we min-maxed one standard array and put them in the least used spot in the other it would be the difference between a (17, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8) and a (15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10). Looking at the bonuses, that's (+3, +2, +1, +1, +0, -1) vs. (+2, +2, +1, +1, +0, +0). As always, the worst bonus difference is the +1 in the most important stat, and the total stat bonus is actually the same.

Absolutely. You are asking the DM to provide you with information you do not currently have-- assuming the DM prepared any in advance. And you would only be making that roll if you were unsure what you were supposed to make of the symbols-- if they were somehow relevant to the plot. In such a situation you are explicitly asking the DM for a hint as to what you are meant to do with whatever the object the symbol is printed on.

Ok. I would assume in general that the player wouldn't, for example, know all the heraldic devices in the kingdom, but that a character who studied such things might. I would probably think of that as a legitimate knowledge skill check instead of a hint... but I wouldn't complain if the DM elaborated more than just what I asked.

The DM could have just told you what the symbol meant straight-up or told you what the object is directly, and various DMs would. The fact that you have to make a roll to ask for more information means that they hid the answer behind a bit of a puzzle. And you are asking for a hint by making that roll instead of experimenting.

True. Some DMs use a lot of die rolls (so those attribute skills and bonuses are important) and some don't.