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

[Undrave]

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.

That's another good idea.

 

[Scribe]

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.

Nobody is saying impossible. (EDIT: I will say, its IMPOSSIBLE, for me to out jump an NBA Center, or fight through a double team block by NFL linemen, at least assuming I am following the rules, and they are performing at their average potential.)

Is the 2 ft tall gnomes as effective a barbarian as the 8 ft tall goliath?

Nope.

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.

Good thing they can be effective. You do not need to minmax your stats.

But we can't determine what is possible, we can only determine what is likely.

Indeed, averages. 'Most of the time'. 'More often than not.' 'Often of an alignment of X'.

No problem at all.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

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

In some cases yes, restriction can encourage better art, usually by the artist reacting against the restrictions. But even if you feel the restriction itself is a necessary part of good art the good news is there'll always be restrictions placed upon chargen by the rules set (whichever one you use.) As for the concept of RPG characters as art, or as you seem to be meaning it, Art: yeah nah.

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.

I am against stats tied to race. If you wish to know why, there's whole threads about why this is a bad idea.

From a game mechanical point of view - I much prefer a system of pure points buy. Want a genius character? Genius level IQ* it costs you X points. Done. Don't matter if you say your character is an elf, an orc, or a small furry creature from Alpha Centauri, that stat costs X points.

I'm okay with certain mechanical differences. Differences that are.. hmmm struggling for the right terminology... So here's examples of mechanical differences I have no problem with that I hope illustrate my point:
Night vision. Dwarves can see in the dark.
Wings. Aracockra have wings. They can fly.


* yes, IQ is very problematic.

 

[Scribe]

the good news is there'll always be restrictions placed upon chargen by the rules set (whichever one you use.)

Yes, race based ASI, exactly.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Yes, race based ASI, exactly.

Lol. You so funny.

 

[Scribe]

Lol. You so funny.

I mean it was right there.

 

[Charlaquin]

What? Yes it does! Or rather they have far easier time becoming great weightlifters than most other races (including gnomes.)*

Which is a different thing than being inherently better weightlifters, which is the thing I had a problem with.

And this was the exact thing you had a problem with when it was being a barbarian instead of a weightlifter a second ago!

It is not.

And I also say that neither goliaths being barbarians or better weightlifters than gnomes is any sort of social justice issue whatsoever. The former might be a game design issue depending on your priorities though.

It’s biological essentialism, which is indeed “a social justice issue.”

On some level yes. And that is good thing.

Agreed.

You mean the cosmetic and superpower related ones?

If you insist on calling them that, sure, but they are real differences.

Why? Is it just that you can describe your character looking fantastic? Because sure, I love that too. But if that and superpowers is all there is, I'm out.

Bye then.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

No. An average man would probably be able to lift more weight than the average woman, but neither would be particularly good weightlifters. Men are not inherently 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.

B does not necessarily follow from A.

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.

The fact that it’s a weight class event would indicate that overall body size is not the only quality we care about when it comes to weight lifting. Someone at the top of one weight class is not a worse weightlifter than someone at the bottom of another. That’s the point of having weight classes.

 

[ad_hoc]

In some cases yes, restriction can encourage better art, usually by the artist reacting against the restrictions. But even if you feel the restriction itself is a necessary part of good art the good news is there'll always be restrictions placed upon chargen by the rules set (whichever one you use.) As for the concept of RPG characters as art, or as you seem to be meaning it, Art: yeah nah.



I am against stats tied to race. If you wish to know why, there's whole threads about why this is a bad idea.

From a game mechanical point of view - I much prefer a system of pure points buy. Want a genius character? Genius level IQ* it costs you X points. Done. Don't matter if you say your character is an elf, an orc, or a small furry creature from Alpha Centauri, that stat costs X points.

I'm okay with certain mechanical differences. Differences that are.. hmmm struggling for the right terminology... So here's examples of mechanical differences I have no problem with that I hope illustrate my point:
Night vision. Dwarves can see in the dark.
Wings. Aracockra have wings. They can fly.


* yes, IQ is very problematic.

I get that you are against stats.

I asked about whether you are against abilities that are represented in other ways.

You said you didn't want to have a "disadvantaged" orc wizard b/c other races have bonuses that are good for wizards. Would it be okay for other races to have abilities that are good for wizards as long as they aren't "stats"?

The orc would still be "disadvantaged," that's what I'm getting at.

If races have abilities whether they are stats or powers, they're going to be better and worse at different classes.

 

[Malmuria]

I get that you are against stats.

I asked about whether you are against abilities that are represented in other ways.

You said you didn't want to have a "disadvantaged" orc wizard b/c other races have bonuses that are good for wizards. Would it be okay for other races to have abilities that are good for wizards as long as they aren't "stats"?

The orc would still be "disadvantaged," that's what I'm getting at.

If races have abilities whether they are stats or powers, they're going to be better and worse at different classes.

Well there are two things to consider: the feeling of any race in the game and whether the book reproduces harmful tropes for readers/players out of game.

High elves have cantrips and gnomes can speak with small animals, and both have advantage on saving throws vs magic (I think?). Those are sort of wizard/magic related advantages. That wouldn't particularly bother me if I was trying to play a half-orc wizard. Neither would not having a particular use for "savage attacks" or whatever it's called.

But for me, intelligence bonuses and penalties replicate in particular harmful stereotypes, and intelligence is the prime stat for wizards, so I would mind an intelligence asi for any race. And I would very much mind an ability for my character that used the word "savage."