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

[Malmuria]

That's not entirely true. If whatever comes next just covers the floating bonuses, then we lose an aspect of the elf archetype that has been represented in the system since at least 1e AD&D. From my perspective, since it took all of 1.5 pages of Tasha's to describe how groups can follow the archetypes or not and offer some guidance to trade-off the archetypical characteristics, I don't see why they couldn't keep the archetype and incorporate Tasha's suggestions in whatever exists going forward. That really would be a case where we both do get the elf we want.

I respect that you feel this way, and understand wanting a game to reinforce archetypes. That being said, I think this is a poor argument for a few reasons

• You reference racial asi as a legacy of 1e AD&D, but 1e had a host of other design elements to help reinforce archetype, some of which remain in some form and most of which don't. These include things like class, level, and multiclass restrictions, some of which were imposed more to "balanced" rather than to reinforce archetype. Further, many common archetypes were not supported by ability changes--gnomes and half-elves, received no penalties or bonuses, elves could not be rangers, dwarves could not be clerics, etc. The point is, the game has moved away from this kind of design since 2e and then certainly 3e.
• A game that is more a toolkit does not foreclose archetypes but rather expands the possible range. A new player can still say to their dm, I want to play Legolas, or Raistlin, and the game can still still easily accommodate a 1st level version of those.
• Because most ASI variation comes via stat generation and class progression, and because ASI leads to an incremental boost in die rolls over time, ASI is not an effective way to reinforce archetype
• the number of races available complicate/expand the archetypes of classic fantasy, so stat increases often do not even really correlate with any pre-given archetype (for example, without looking, what are the standard ASI for, say, a water genasi?)
• I would agree that the designers should include other optional abilities so that players and dms can create characters based on archetype, whether those hew to classic fantasy or to something else

When the reprinting of the PHB takes place, the PC options will be all floating ASI.

That is a loss to me.

Me. Mine. I.

You don't care? You see no loss? Fantastic.

The lack of definition or decrease in definition, is a loss to ME.

So spite then, got it.

The definition of fantasy has long past expanded beyond Tolkein + Appendix N. And we probably have the popular mashup that is dnd most to thank for that expansion. Making a game that showed that a wide variety of fantasy, pulp, and even sci-fi archetypes could sit next to one another without too much difficulty, and even be fun, along with the proliferation of additional options (partly due to the business of selling products) has created a situation where the designers need to create a game that can include and accommodate the old archetypes (whatever those were), but also the many other sources of fantasy imagination, many of them inspired by dnd itself.

One thing I see in this conversation that is similar to the debate over "canon" is the need for their to be an official stamp one's own game preferences, and the feeling of loss if that official stamp is removed. If one wants the feeling of classic dnd with its archetypes, there are not shortage of excellently produced b/x clones along with adventures that rival anything that was produced during the late 70s and early 80s. These were all products not available during the beginning of wotc's tenure as official publishers, for example. So I find it confounding that wotc's position on the matter is experienced as a loss (even though I obviously cannot argue with the reality of anyone else's experience).

 

[Chaosmancer]

When the reprinting of the PHB takes place, the PC options will be all floating ASI.

That is a loss to me.

Me. Mine. I.

You don't care? You see no loss? Fantastic.

The lack of definition or decrease in definition, is a loss to ME.

Is that something they have announced officially? Or just "the writing on the wall"? Because one is it being a loss to you, the other is you just being fearful that it might be a loss to you.

Heck, they haven't even announced a reprinting of the PHB.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not best wizards, whole class is not the niche. You can qualify who's best at class by one stat alone. Sure the gnome might have one point more int but the human fill have an extra feat. Not that my setting has gnomes to begin with.

"That if the player decides to focus on the thing their PC's species is known for, they are guaranteed to be best in the party at it."

How does this not translate into "make them the best wizards"? Are gnomes known for being the best barbarians instead? Seems kind of like you made a very broad statement, and are now walking it back.

 

[Bill Zebub]

"That if the player decides to focus on the thing their PC's species is known for, they are guaranteed to be best in the party at it."

How does this not translate into "make them the best wizards"? Are gnomes known for being the best barbarians instead? Seems kind of like you made a very broad statement, and are now walking it back.

It seems to me that the impact/importance of +1 to your primary stat should just be left out of the debate. Either the argument is "well, it's really a big deal because of balance/flavor (depending on your side), but it's not a big deal to flavor/balance (the other side)." In which case both sides should just drop the point.

Or one could more reasonably argue that it's equally important. In which case both sides should just drop the point.

 

[abirdcall]

So, after reading this whole thread, I guess I'm still struggling to understand what anybody is "losing". Presumably the entries for NPC elves will still have high dexterity. And presumably people who care about this particular archetype will continue to put the +2 into dexterity. Other people at the table might put the +2 somewhere else, but even now nothing is forcing anybody to put their highest attribute into Dex (before the ASI) so not all PC elves have high dexterity anyway. I mean, if somebody showed up with an Elf PC with an 8 dex, and you knew that it was created with Point Buy or Standard Array, you might say, "Aha! That wasn't even possible before!" But I really doubt that's what you are worried about.

Can you help me understand what you think will be lost?

Narrative identity.

I don't care if other tables want to do away with them but my table has kept them and we like it the old way.

At some point the races just end up being a bundle of powers that are bought.

I want what race my character is to have a substantial impact on them and how they play. Maybe that means they will have a lower main stat, that's fine. I don't care if I have the biggest numbers I want narrative identity.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Narrative identity.

I don't care if other tables want to do away with them but my table has kept them and we like it the old way.

At some point the races just end up being a bundle of powers that are bought.

I want what race my character is to have a substantial impact on them and how they play. Maybe that means they will have a lower main stat, that's fine. I don't care if I have the biggest numbers I want narrative identity.

Thanks for answering, but I still don't understand what would be different. If you (and everybody you play with, based on what you describe) put the ASIs wherever gives you the most "narrative identity", which presumably is where they are currently with fixed ASIs, how has the game actually changed?

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious; I'm not being disingenuous I genuinely don't understand.

 

[JEB]

Thanks for answering, but I still don't understand what would be different. If you (and everybody you play with, based on what you describe) put the ASIs wherever gives you the most "narrative identity", which presumably is where they are currently with fixed ASIs, how has the game actually changed?

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious; I'm not being disingenuous I genuinely don't understand.

Some folks want official defaults for things so they don't have to make it up themselves. Which can, and should, overlap with open, choose-whatever-you-want options, as well as more flexible lore that avoids essentialism.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Some folks want official defaults for things so they don't have to make it up themselves. Which can, and should, overlap with open, choose-whatever-you-want options, as well as more flexible lore that avoids essentialism.

That makes sense. Although, that doesn't seem to me what either @ad_hoc or @billd91 are saying are their own reasons. But perhaps I misunderstand.

 

[abirdcall]

Thanks for answering, but I still don't understand what would be different. If you (and everybody you play with, based on what you describe) put the ASIs wherever gives you the most "narrative identity", which presumably is where they are currently with fixed ASIs, how has the game actually changed?

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious; I'm not being disingenuous I genuinely don't understand.

I am not sure I follow.

I am saying use default 5e not Tasha's variant. So not changing anything.

Using the variant strips races of much of their identity. There are still classes that are better or worse for different classes, they're just different races now. The disparity in class power is more evident which is more of a problem because the game is more focused on seeing races as power bundles rather than narrative identities.

If the proposition is to get rid of racial ASIs and replace them with abilities that are thematic, like racial feats, I am ok board.

But the way 5e was designed ASIs are integral to race identity.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I am not sure I follow.

I am saying use default 5e not Tasha's variant. So not changing anything.

Using the variant strips races of much of their identity. There are still classes that are better or worse for different classes, they're just different races now. The disparity in class power is more evident which is more of a problem because the game is more focused on seeing races as power bundles rather than narrative identities.

If the proposition is to get rid of racial ASIs and replace them with abilities that are thematic, like racial feats, I am ok board.

But the way 5e was designed ASIs are integral to race identity.

I guess what I meant was that if WotC got rid of fixed ASIs completely, and officially floating ASIs were the only rule mentioned in the book, how would the game actually change for you? When you sat down and played, how would it play differently? Or what would you worry might change?