Level Up (A5E) Where to put ability bonuses during character creation

[Cap'n Kobold]

The trick is to have a mixture of things that are useful to some and not really useful to others. Elven weapon proficiencies don't do anything for the warriors, but they offer a boost for the semi-warriors.

Kind of like how Mountain Dwarves balance an armour proficiency that is only useful to non-warriors with an ability bonus that is only of primary importance to warriors?

This is one of the reasons I am hesitant when it comes to mix-and-match, build your own races. Most races have a mix of benefits to various concepts rather than optimising for one. You can break down the dwarven benefits into points, but any race built on that total by an optimiser will be more powerful than a dwarf, since they will have traded away the abilities that don't benefit them for abilities that do directly benefit them.

 

[Horwath]

Kind of like how Mountain Dwarves balance an armour proficiency that is only useful to non-warriors with an ability bonus that is only of primary importance to warriors?

This is one of the reasons I am hesitant when it comes to mix-and-match, build your own races. Most races have a mix of benefits to various concepts rather than optimising for one. You can break down the dwarven benefits into points, but any race built on that total by an optimiser will be more powerful than a dwarf, since they will have traded away the abilities that don't benefit them for abilities that do directly benefit them.

Fair point, but I would rather see more open ended bonuses that all can have some benefit.

So for dwarves I would put +1 category from starting class armor proficiency:

none->light
light->medium
medium->heavy
heavy->extra class skill+tool

Bonus weapon proficiency or if you start with all martial weapons extra 2 tools or languages.

 

[CapnZapp]

Kind of like how Mountain Dwarves balance an armour proficiency that is only useful to non-warriors with an ability bonus that is only of primary importance to warriors?

This is one of the reasons I am hesitant when it comes to mix-and-match, build your own races. Most races have a mix of benefits to various concepts rather than optimising for one. You can break down the dwarven benefits into points, but any race built on that total by an optimiser will be more powerful than a dwarf, since they will have traded away the abilities that don't benefit them for abilities that do directly benefit them.

Yes.

Freely mixing and matching is the death of the D&D feeling

D&D is defined by not offering generic classes or point based character build options.

D&D is defined by forcing players to select highly idiosyncratic packages where you have to take the bad with the good.

That "resistance" is what's offering the "texture" that makes the game feel like D&D as opposed to some generic fantasy d20 game (with classes like Strong, Fast or Smart).

 

[CapnZapp]

Not being able to get it exactly how you want it is, when you think about it, the single best thing about D&D.

 

[CapnZapp]

Throughout the history of D&D, there have always been strong voices to allow players to freely mix and match to get it exactly how they like it.

Please keep not listening to them, Level Up.

(The idea in itself is fine. For a stand-alone game such a change would be fine. At least if you by "fine" mean "being regarded as a not-D&D game that sells not even 1 percent of what D&D sells", but still fine.)

But Level Up isn't its own thing. It would be a huge mistake to stop asking players interested in playing Mountain Dwarf Rangers to cope with slow speed, or lower Charisma than Constitution, or stronger abilities regarding shooting arrows than magic bolts, or skills regarding the gods and the natural world, than, say, questions revolving around artificial constructs and the arcane.

 

[Horwath]

I'm personally against any ability boosts in character creation, but if all are certain that it needs to be done then

Race+subrace(heritage) 2 pts
Culture 1pt
Background 1pt

No ability can be raised by more than +2.


I.E.

race: Elves:
+1 dex or int

subrace: wood elf
+1 to one ability out of str, dex or wis

Culture: forest
+1 to dex, int or wis

Background: Outlander
+1 to str, dex or con

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

OK. may not be relevant now, but I've changed my opinion on this, and my vote after doing some rough maths.

The difference between a halfling and a half orc is the one often used as the comparison: a 2 pt difference in Str score.
The Strength (based on lifting) difference between men and women is more than 4 points of Str.

Since I'm happy to not apply a Str score difference between human males and females, I'm happy to handwave away the lesser difference between races.

Just remove ASIs during character creation completely.

 

[CapnZapp]

I consider ASIs a significant part of crunch during character creation and that this should be retained.

The fact that not every D&D race has equal potential for every "job" is an important and valuable part of the game that is building your character.

Restrictions and limitations are good for the game, since it is the backbone of why a game looks and feels like D&D, rather than some generic (high) fantasy game.

It also helps world building and is a core part of D&D's legacy.

 

[CapnZapp]

While not crucial to generic D&D, I believe there is nothing wrong with sword & sandals campaigns (like Conan, or maybe ancient Greece) that add in a marked strength disparity between genders.

At least for humans (and these campaigns are often much more human centric, offering few to no non-human humanoid choices during character generation)

5th Edition already provides ample support for "Dex fighters". Barring females from "hulking brute" strength builds is therefore a much smaller limitation than in many other editions of the game. Small enough that enforcement of gender disparity on Strength is a non-fatal intrusion in the game's menu of choices, in my opinion.

 

[Horwath]

While not crucial to generic D&D, I believe there is nothing wrong with sword & sandals campaigns (like Conan) that add in a marked strength disparity between genders.

At least for humans (and these campaigns are often much more human centric, offering few to no non-human humanoid choices during character generation)

Might work, but I would not go with penalty/bonuses, rather with limit on maximum score at character creatiton or general max score.