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

[Scribe]

It’s essentializing to attribute their essential nature to that biological trait. Might being naturally stronger be an advantage if you decide to become a weight lifter? Absolutely. That doesn’t mean men are essentially better weightlifters than women. There is a great deal beyond raw physical strength and size that goes into weight lifting - technique, mindset, drive, etc. to say nothing of the fact that some women are in fact stronger than some men. The same can, and should, be true of different fantasy races. Now, is it biologically essentialist to say Goliaths are stronger than gnomes on average? No. But it would be to say that Goliaths are better barbariana than gnomes. And even if the game never outright says that, the mechanics are such that they imply it. If you want to build a gnome barbarian, you’re going to find that your character is just worse at doing most of the things a barbarian does.

I have a feeling that this encapsulates my entire issue with all of this, and I dont feel it can be resolved considering we arent even talking about defined terms anymore.

A: Are men on average larger/stronger, than women? As you noted, yes.
B: Is weight lifting, an activity that has a goal (lift the weight) that being larger, and stronger, provides an advantage for? yes.

If A is true and B is true, are men not on average (essentially??), going to be better weightlifters than women?

You can point to things outside of the physicality of it which apply to both men and women (and therefore cancel out no?), but yes, on average, men will be larger and stronger than women, and therefore, better weightlifters.

Weightlifting is even a weight class event, and a quick glance at the records for weight lifting would indicate that the numbers speak for themselves.

Just as extreme endurance swimming, seems to favour women, due to their biology.

Run this out to the Goliath and the Gnome (indeed that thread was about being a Gnome strongman if I remember) and...yes. A Goliath should be a better Barbarian than a Gnome, otherwise outside of appearance, what is the point.

Just as someone who is under 6 feet tall, and under 160 lbs (aka me), is never, was never, ever, going to be a Nose Tackle in the NFL, or a Center in the NBA.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Of course having wings is biological essentialism, so is being biologically better runner, being stronger (was it via strength ASI or powerful build) and literally any species-wide biological difference in capability. What is disingenuous is to pretend that it isn't.

Yes, I fully understand that some depictions of biological essentialism are far more harmful than others. I am not confused about that. But some people here (I think you included) have said that any biological essentialism is problematic. And I'm not sure that is even wrong. But please, let's be internally consistent with this!


Sure. But then you don't think any depiction of biological essentialism is bad, just some depictions of it.

But I really think the issue is far more difficult than you are willing to accept.

You know, something about this argument has always bugged me, and finally I have the context for why.

I recently watched a comedy news show (I think it was "More News") on "Critical Race Theory". I don't want to dive into politics, but this is important to my conception here. There is a lot of panic out there, things like "Critical Race Theory is being taught to kindergartners." Well, this news show pointed out that "Critical Race Theory" has been around for a few decades, and that it was a term for a specific view in legal philosophy, taught in schools like Harvard. To truly drive home his point about how it was not being taught to Kindergartners he played a clip of a guy who actually teaches this stuff explaining what it is on a news show. I got about... 10% of it. It is dense and complicated stuff that you truly and honestly need a deep understanding of the subject to even follow.

Why bring this up?

Because it demonstrates that taking a term out of its context, and just applying to other contexts can be highly misleading. And, it was with that thought that I did something I've never done in these discussions. I googled "What is biological Essentialism" This is the answer I got.

Biological essentialism depicts a process in which biological influences precede cultural influences and set predetermined limits to the effects of culture.

This comes from a paper that seems to have been written about sociology, but if this is the understanding of it... then that does sort of change your questions. But, I decided to go ahead and double check by googling a second question "Do Biologists use the term Biological essentialism" And, in simple terms, the answer I got was a paper talking about the place of "essentialism" in the history of biology and the relation it has with evolutionary theory. The idea coming in that "essentialism" was seen as an idea of unchanging essences.



So, with this new understanding I started looking back at some of these questions... and aren't they a bit silly in this context? "Of course wings set predetermined limits to the effect of culture on a person"? None of these abilities fall into this category. Now, to be fair, do "grace" or "strength" really fall into them either? Not necessarily. But, you can't have these without having intelligence or wisdom... and that does start getting into that territory. But we don't really talk about species and biology in this manner. We don't talk about "Biological Essentialism" in terms of birds, or insects, or anything else.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, since we are here, let's tackle a bit on the second argument that we see all the time. "Isn't species A stronger than Species B"?

It sounds reasonable at first, but there is a problem. See, the game just isn't set up to show the level of difference people are talking about in those instances. For example, Elephants can lift up to 7 tons, 14,000 lbs. Translating that into DnD? Huge Creature means str*4, lift is *30, reverse by dividing... A strength score of 116.

So, on average, an elephant "species" would need a +100 to strength to capture that difference from a human. A +2? A difference of 30 lbs? That is nothing. Yes, an elephant is obviously stronger than a dog. But the difference between PCs never reaches these levels in "real-world logic". Mechanically, in the game where +2 is supposed to make a difference to accuracy and damage? It makes a difference. World-building wise though? This is nothing that would actually differentiate. It is a tiny tiny difference.

 

[Malmuria]

I have a feeling that this encapsulates my entire issue with all of this, and I dont feel it can be resolved considering we arent even talking about defined terms anymore.

A: Are men on average larger/stronger, than women? As you noted, yes.
B: Is weight lifting, an activity that has a goal (lift the weight) that being larger, and stronger, provides an advantage for? yes.

If A is true and B is true, are men not on average (essentially??), going to be better weightlifters than women?

You can point to things outside of the physicality of it which apply to both men and women (and therefore cancel out no?), but yes, on average, men will be larger and stronger than women, and therefore, better weightlifters.

Weightlifting is even a weight class event, and a quick glance at the records for weight lifting would indicate that the numbers speak for themselves.

Just as extreme endurance swimming, seems to favour women, due to their biology.

Run this out to the Goliath and the Gnome (indeed that thread was about being a Gnome strongman if I remember) and...yes. A Goliath should be a better Barbarian than a Gnome, otherwise outside of appearance, what is the point.

Just as someone who is under 6 feet tall, and under 160 lbs (aka me), is never, was never, ever, going to be a Nose Tackle in the NFL, or a Center in the NBA.

I think it's best to let players determine the aptitudes they want for their characters, rather than provide a try to provide a mechanic (ASI) that models or simulates biological diversity. Because, that mechanic (like many in dnd) does a very poor job of actually modeling anything, and in the meantime introduces exclusionary language. For example, in 1e female characters had a strength cap. That mechanic quickly went away, wisely, because people wanted to bring badass female fighters to the table and not feel like they were being penalized by the supposed simulation in the rules. Maybe it rankled and broke the immersion for the simulationists, but it was better for the game. Somewhat similarly, maybe in your setting you want to have a high strength, low intelligence species, and you can work that out with your players. But that trope is harmful and affects the way some people are seen even in the current day, and is really just unnecessary to include in the base game. It doesn't have to be there in order for dnd to still be dnd.

 

[Scribe]

It doesn't have to be there in order for dnd to still be dnd.

And I disagree. Removal of race/lineage/species ASI, absolutely does remove part of the game.

 

[Malmuria]

And I disagree. Removal of race/lineage/species ASI, absolutely does remove part of the game.

What about all the other related AD&D rules? Strength caps for women and small demihumans? Level caps for all non-humans? Class restrictions based on race?

If you want that kind of "simulation" (in my view, faux-simulation), it would make sense to go with 1e or 2e. That is, if that's what you want, 5e style racial asi is already an atrophied mechanic. Similarly, if you want clear-cut tolkeinesque archetypes, go with b/x or ose (which, if I were to run a dnd game now, would be my preference, actually).

But 5e seems to want to be a more generalizable toolkit (to a certain degree). I think what's discordant about 5e is that the essentialist language in the race and MM descriptions does not match the more open-ended mechanics, or, obviously, the very open-ended playstyle that has emerged since its initial publication.

edit: plus, really? you get the phb and the starter set. One of the players makes a half orc wizard that is able to have a 17 int instead of a 15 int, and thus memorize one additional spell and get a %5 boost to certain rolls. You then play through the module. You are telling me that that 5% boost makes dnd not feel like dnd?

 

[cmad1977]

And I disagree. Removal of race/lineage/species ASI, absolutely does remove part of the game.

Nah.
Ability bonuses aren’t what tell me another player is an orc. The fact that they take a death blow and then bounce back is what tells me their an orc.

 

[Scribe]

What about all the other related AD&D rules? Strength caps for women and small demihumans? Level caps for all non-humans? Class restrictions based on race?

If you want that kind of "simulation" (in my view, faux-simulation), it would make sense to go with 1e or 2e. That is, if that's what you want, 5e style racial asi is already an atrophied mechanic. Similarly, if you want clear-cut tolkeinesque archetypes, go with b/x or ose (which, if I were to run a dnd game now, would be my preference, actually).

But 5e seems to want to be a more generalizable toolkit (to a certain degree). I think what's discordant about 5e is that the essentialist language in the race and MM descriptions does not match the more open-ended mechanics, or, obviously, the very open-ended playstyle that has emerged since its initial publication.

I agree, past editions did a better job at offering what I look for.

5e, on release, as written, and allllllll the way up till Tashas, also offered what I wanted, for the most part. I still want those caps and negative Ability Score modifiers...but hey we cant have it all.

Obviously, its Wizards game, they will do as they wish to follow whichever way the money if flowing, but when 5e was written it provided enough of what I deem 'D&D'.

Once it does not, I'll just stop buying their books.

 

[Malmuria]

I agree, past editions did a better job at offering what I look for.

5e, on release, as written, and allllllll the way up till Tashas, also offered what I wanted, for the most part. I still want those caps and negative Ability Score modifiers...but hey we cant have it all.

Obviously, its Wizards game, they will do as they wish to follow whichever way the money if flowing, but when 5e was written it provided enough of what I deem 'D&D'.

Once it does not, I'll just stop buying their books.

please do that! not to be that guy but for those of you who want a more 1e game...OSRIC? Sword and Wizardry? For Gold and Glory? Actual 1e?

for those are annoyed with wotc's half measures...Black Hack? Maze Rats? Electric Bastionland?

 

[Yaarel]

How is "+2 Con", or even "+2 Con, -2 Dex" not biologically determined?

In reallife? Constitution (health, stamina, energy) correlates with culture, such as, endurance training, good nutrition, good access to affordable healthcare, etcetera.

In D&D, mainly endurance training. The problem with Constitution is it isnt really an "ability". It is passive. It just sits there and gets hit. Literally.
It is difficult to translate this into a mechanical "skill". But the Athletics skill adds proficiency to most endurance checks. (Tho I personally rarely see endurance checks. Maybe one or two times per year?) Characters can improve their endurance, by training, namely by leveling, to improve their Athletics skill and their Constitution score the same way as improving other scores. It is culture and personal effort.

When players create a new character at level 1, this character is an adult, roughly 20. This character may or may not already have many years endurance training, whence an unusually high Constitution, typically unseen until higher levels.

 

[Undrave]

In reallife? Constitution (health, stamina, energy) correlates with culture, such as, endurance training, good nutrition, good access to affordable healthcare, etcetera.

In D&D, mainly endurance training. The problem with Constitution is it isnt really an "ability". It is passive. It just sits there and gets hit. Literally.
It is difficult to translate this into a mechanical "skill". But the Athletics skill adds proficiency to most endurance checks. (Tho I personally rarely see endurance checks. Maybe one or two times per year?) Characters can improve their endurance, by training, namely by leveling, to improve their Athletics skill and their Constitution score the same way as improving other scores. It is culture and personal effort.

When players create a new character at level 1, this character is an adult, roughly 20. This character may or may not already have many years endurance training, whence an unusually high Constitution, typically unseen until higher levels.

I miss the 4e Endurance skill...