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

[Scribe]

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?

I've said many times, I'm hoping for Planescape, soon, under the actual 5e design, then they can do whatever they want, I'm out.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

@MGibster - bravo! Full marks for graciousness.

I realised long ago (when I started playing Fantasy HERO back in the late 80s) that linking stat bonuses to race had some unwelcome character gen implications. (As different from unwelcome, real world racist implications which I didn't come to understand until much later.)

Why should we, as players, be limited by some silly game construct? If I want to play a smart orcish wizard why should there be a mechanical disadvantage built in by some arbitrary definition of what it is to be an orc? At a core rule level such an idea is ridiculous. Even at a more specific campaign level such a rule is... still ridiculous.

 

[ad_hoc]

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.

Leaving aside ASI do you want there to be mechanical differences?

Do you want to get rid of the abilities too?

And if not why not?

They amount to the same thing.

 

[Scribe]

Why should we, as players, be limited by some silly game construct? If I want to play a smart orcish wizard why should there be a mechanical disadvantage built in by some arbitrary definition of what it is to be an orc?

Because restriction, differentiation, breeds creativity and makes the various options, more meaningful.

 

[ad_hoc]

@MGibster - bravo! Full marks for graciousness.

I realised long ago (when I started playing Fantasy HERO back in the late 80s) that linking stat bonuses to race had some unwelcome character gen implications. (As different from unwelcome, real world racist implications which I didn't come to understand until much later.)

Why should we, as players, be limited by some silly game construct? If I want to play a smart orcish wizard why should there be a mechanical disadvantage built in by some arbitrary definition of what it is to be an orc? At a core rule level such an idea is ridiculous. Even at a more specific campaign level such a rule is... still ridiculous.

Are you against any racial abilities that would be advantageous to wizards?

And if so are you then saying that races shouldn't have mechanical differences? Because that's ultimately what you're advocating for here.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Right. But as your last sentence already alludes, differences in temperament can actually be based on biology. For example I would imagine that intelligent creatures that have evolved from small herbivores would have rather different temperament than ones that have evolved from apex predators. Now whether actually depicting this is problematic is another matter. However; I have to say that if we cannot actually depict aliens/fantasy species as having different instincts and ways of thinking than humans, then it's not worth bothering with them. Those are the actually interesting differences, not whether someone can fly or shoot lasers from their eyes.

You know, I have to say that the question of "Do fantasy races have a place in fantasy literature going forward" is not an easy question if I take it seriously. I can imagine this is something that can be seriously struggled with and considered in terms of literature and philosophy for the next hundred years. Just like many other issues like this.

But... I'm not equipped to solve the social ills of hundreds of years of discrimination and find the perfect solution in the next... three hours of discussion. This is something that will need to be seen. I don't have the answer. How could I have the answer to what is going to be considered proper in 100 years? How do I have any insight into what is going to be determined as we navigate these waters?

But, at the same time... nobody in any of these discussions. Not one person has ever put forth that they desire all fantasy races to be forever and permanently erased from all fantasy. No one wants this. Nobody. We all think that is something we don't want to see.

So... can people stop bringing it up as some big scary monster problem that we are immediately being confronted with? I get it may be some future problem that we wrestle with as we wrestle with all changes to media. But, it isn't anything that we are actually going to be dealing with in DnD.

 

[Malmuria]

Leaving aside ASI do you want there to be mechanical differences?

Do you want to get rid of the abilities too?

And if not why not?

They amount to the same thing.

So, in my view the mechanical differences among races should make that race feel like that race in play. In 5e, ASI doesn't really do the trick because ASI also come from class (vs b/x, where you are stuck with your initial abilities aside from magic items and wishes). Whereas, something like elven trance is distinctive and comes up during play for our group (usually when we discuss setting watches). So I don't really care about ASI I just don't think they do the thing they are supposed to do, at least in 5e.

Apart from that, I would say ASI that increase intelligence in particular (and in Volos, the intelligence reduction for orcs) invoke harmful real life stereotypes and have been noted as unsavory by new players that have come to my table. Whatever gain in immersion or simulation there was to be had (and per the above, I think that's very minimal), it was not worth the feeling of alienation from those new players (I don't mean that in a particularly dramatic way; we dealt with it, but it's just not something that was important for our game at all).

 

[Yaarel]

I miss the 4e Endurance skill...

Heh, Im the other way around. Im thinking of dropping Constitution from the abilities!

It is too passive to be an "ability". It doesnt actually "do" anything. It is a boring stat to invest in.

Moreover, even as an ability, it seems fairly constant. Most characters require some investment, few characters have much investment. So it ends up being a number that most player characters have.

It is the class that determines hit points.

Maybe certain races can have Toughness as one of its race feats that a player can choose from?

Give the "fortitude save" to Strength − along with its Athletics. Use Strength for all physical athletic stuff.

Use the spellcasting ability to make Concentration checks. (Or maybe these spellcasters need Strength for them.)

It is probably better if we dont have Constitution. Just use Strength. Make every ability "do" things that are fun.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I

I've said many times, I'm hoping for Planescape, soon, under the actual 5e design, then they can do whatever they want, I'm out.

I actually found a 5e Planescape doc recently out on the interwebs. That, and all the lore I already have, covers what I need.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Here is the issue. This idea of averages and percentiles and all of that is vaguely nice but it doesn't determine anything. And the terms being bandied about are things like "biological determinism". Under a model like that, it would be considered impossible for a woman to be a better weightlifter than a man. It would be said that whatever the current men's world record is, is something that a woman could not beat, because men are stronger.


Now, I don't know modern weightlifting, but I do know history. And that includes the story of Katie Sandwina, who was a circus performer and strongwoman. Really strongwoman. She would challenge the audience to try and match her lifting, a good show for back in the early 1900's. Until one show when the man who stepped forth was Eugen Sandow, internationally recognized as the strongest man in the world.

And, as you guessed, she beat him.

This is the fundamental difference. This is the thing that we are all going to say is obvious, but the paradigms constructed by determinism say cannot happen. Anybody can reach the top. Sure, it could be unlikely that a woman is going to beat the men's weightlifting gold. It might even be a difference that we say is insurmountable. But we can't determine what is possible, we can only determine what is likely.

And, to reference back to my elephants needing a strength of 116, the game isn't designed to perfectly emulate the real world. It can't. And no matter what you do to ASIs... it will never prevent things from being occassionally weird. Like this:


That d20 is always going to be a bigger determining factor than whether or not the gnome was able to get an 18 strength before 12th level... but that strength score sure does make playing that gnome easier for the person who is making attack rolls and dealing damage, and not trying to do a sociopolitical statement on the representation of strength in roleplaying games.

Is the 2 ft tall gnomes as effective a barbarian as the 8 ft tall goliath? Sure, why not. An axe to jugular is deadly no matter who is swinging it, and I'd rather let people be effective than decrying the breakdown of social norms because gnomes shouldn't be effective at swinging sharp pieces of metal at people.