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

[Charlaquin]

This analysis is weird to me. Yes, PF2 offers more sources of stat bonuses to adjust the character based on more than just ancestry - but the fact remains that some ancestry/class combinations require more commitment of these stat bonuses to achieve than others for the same mechanical benefits. How that absolves PF2 from biologically essentialist while D&D is essentialist is beyond me. It's just a matter of degree, not a matter of completely removing it, and the choices you had in placing your stats (whether rolled, arrayed, or bought on points) always had a similar chance to affect it.

Because the ancestral ability adjustments are just smoke and mirrors. Because of the layered way you pick ability bonuses and the number of floating bonuses you get, it’s possible to put 18 in your class’s primary stat, a 14 in your class’s two secondary stats, and a 12 in any other stat of your choice, regardless of which ancestry and class you pick. Functionally, PF2 might as well just have the choice of an 18, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10 array or an 18, 14, 12, 12, 12, 10 array. Try it, pick an ancestry and class combo you think wouldn’t work well together, follow the steps for character generation, and see if you can get one of those two arrays (you can).

 

[billd91]

Because the ancestral ability adjustments are just smoke and mirrors. Because of the layered way you pick ability bonuses and the number of floating bonuses you get, it’s possible to put 18 in your class’s primary stat, a 14 in your class’s two secondary stats, and a 12 in any other stat of your choice, regardless of which ancestry and class you pick. Functionally, PF2 might as well just have the choice of an 18, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10 array or an 18, 14, 12, 12, 12, 10 array. Try it, pick an ancestry and class combo you think wouldn’t work well together, follow the steps for character generation, and see if you can get one of those two arrays (you can).

The ability to achieve it isn't the issue. You can do that in 5e as well. The question is whether or not some combinations are more expensive for one ancestry or another. A player wanting to be a dwarf sorcerer is facing higher opportunity costs in PF2 to achieve the same mechanical benefits as a gnome pursuing the same class. The difference between the two games is one of degree.

 

[TwoSix]

The ability to achieve it isn't the issue. You can do that in 5e as well. The question is whether or not some combinations are more expensive for one ancestry or another. A player wanting to be a dwarf sorcerer is facing higher opportunity costs in PF2 to achieve the same mechanical benefits as a gnome pursuing the same class. The difference between the two games is one of degree.

In 5e, you can't get a 16 in your main stat with the wrong race-class combination (unless you're rolling). That's directly comparable to getting an 18 in PF2, and there's no race-class combination in PF2 that can't get an 18 in the main stat. Characters in PF2 all end up with the same sum of modifiers, although they may have some degrees of constraint on the exact distribution of their tertiary and below stat priority, depending on race/background choice. So yea, it's a bit different.

That being said, it's hard to argue that even PF2 doesn't have some essentialism in their distribution of racial boosts. I personally don't give a fig about essentialism, I just think PF2 is way more flexible in gamist terms.

 

[Charlaquin]

The ability to achieve it isn't the issue. You can do that in 5e as well.

No, you can’t. I mean, you can use your ASIs at level ups, but so can characters with racial ASIs in their primary abilities, so the only way to catch up is after other characters cap out - and then you’re down a Feat!

In PF2 it doesn’t work this way. Functionally, everyone starts out with the same array in PF2. Whatever your race/class combination is, you end up with 18, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10 (or 18, 14, 12, 12, 12, 10), at character creation. No additional resources spent to achieve it.

The question is whether or not some combinations are more expensive for one ancestry or another. A player wanting to be a dwarf sorcerer is facing higher opportunity costs in PF2 to achieve the same mechanical benefits as a gnome pursuing the same class.

They aren’t though. A dwarf sorcerer in PF2 can start play with 18 Cha, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 10 Wis, 10 Str (or whatever). It doesn’t cost them anything to do so.

 

[billd91]

In 5e, you can't get a 16 in your main stat with the wrong race-class combination (unless you're rolling). That's directly comparable to getting an 18 in PF2, and there's no race-class combination in PF2 that can't get an 18 in the main stat. Characters in PF2 all end up with the same sum of modifiers, although they may have some degrees of constraint on the exact distribution of their tertiary and below stat priority, depending on race/background choice. So yea, it's a bit different.

That being said, it's hard to argue that even PF2 doesn't have some essentialism in their distribution of racial boosts. I personally don't give a fig about essentialism, I just think PF2 is way more flexible in gamist terms.

There's no doubt, it is a little different and it is a little more flexible. But I think we agree, it's still present. Spending level-based ASIs vs devoting a particular background or floating stat point is a question of which opportunity cost you're absorbing to achieve the same end point.

BTW, we do roll stats in the games I run.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Removing stat bonuses alltogether would be the right choice.
In the PF2 example above, we clearly see that either you have constraints or so mich freedom that you can just get the bog standard array.
If you don't roll, where +2 bonuses are improving the odds of a higher stat, they are just a burden.

If you want to have useful bonuses in a point buy system, you need to rethink it.
Maybe every class gets a bonus to their main stat, and MAD classes get bonuses to more than one stat.
So a paladin might get 3 +2 bonuses, because they need it.
This would neatly fit with the Idea that only exceptional persons (as in ADnD) can become paladins. Just that now, you don't require very lucky rolls.
You can also reflavour it as the blessing of a god.

 

[Dausuul]

But if the six arent working, then theyre just not working.

Certain things are definitional to D&D, and the six ability scores are high on that list. Players are deeply attached to them. 4E was an object lesson in the dangers of changing such things, and even 4E didn't venture to touch the Sacred Six.

You can argue till you're blue in the face, marshaling all the logic and design sense in the world, that the game would work better with only four stats. You may be right! I believe the game would work better with none at all. But Wizards is never going to change the lineup. Hell, I wouldn't if I were in charge of D&D--the benefits do not justify the risk.

I do think it might be possible to push D&D back toward the 2E model. In 2E, the secondary bonuses from ability scores (attack and damage bonuses, hit point bonuses, etc.) were much smaller than in 3E and later. However, when you used a nonweapon proficiency (the 2E equivalent of a skill check), you added the whole score to the d20 roll*, so there was a really noticeable difference.

I'd like to see 6E move in that direction. It probably won't, though.

*Well, sort of. You rolled 1d20 and tried to roll less than or equal to your ability score. However, nobody wants to go back to that kind of system; the "higher always better" equivalent is d20 + ability score vs DC 21.

 

[the Jester]

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.

That's pretty disingenuous, given that elephants are not a pc race or even humanoid. I don't see how this intersects at all with the idea that (f'rex) half-orcs are stronger than human. D&D is set up to capture that difference, and if you think it's nothing, it shouldn't bother you to not get fully optimized stats.

 

[ad_hoc]

Actually I was getting at the old DnD trope of orcs having low intelligence. But I did not make that clear. Sorry.



Maybe. I'd have to see the advantage to know. But my gut reaction is "no problem." Do you mean, maybe, fire folk cast fire spells at a higher level and thereby are intrinsically better at fire spells than others? I'm cool with that.

My issue is not that some other character might be better at X, but that if I want to play a character it shouldn't start at a point below the baseline unless I want it to. If I play a wizard who's good at wizarding then I want them to be good at wizarding. If I want them to be a bit sub-par then I'll build them a bit sub-par (and put the points saved into something else.)

In my ideal world we wouldn't have racial ASIs and definitely not have abilities like 'savage attacker' which I think is much worse.

We would instead have even more impactful and strong abilities.

The problem I have is that the game wasn't designed that way. So if we take away the racial ASIs we don't have much left.

Going forward I'm going to give the option to take a racial feat rather than the +2 they get. This doesn't apply to Half-Elfs or the Mountain Dwarfs' +2 Str.

I'd love to see more racial feats in upcoming books but I doubt that will happen at this point. I am going to think on it but I might also just open it up to any feat going forward.

 

[the Jester]

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.

Show me any evidence from any edition that Constitution is the result of cultural influence and endurance training, et al, rather than natural robustness, health, and endurance.

Have you never known two people from similar backgrounds with wildly different levels of health? One as healthy as an ox, basically never sick, and the other always coughing and sneezing? It's not always about training; sometimes someone is simply healthier than someone else.

Your claim is like saying that Intelligence (in D&D) is the result of education and study. But you can have a high Int character who has absolutely zero education.