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

[abirdcall]

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?

Are we talking about going forward or with a revised 5e?

I would miss out on using new races.

If revised 5e it would make for a worse game for me. I would have a hard time adding them in if they weren't in the book at all.

I like to have as few and simple houserules as I can.

I can only hope if 5e does get revised floating ASIs are gone and races have more unique abilities instead.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Are we talking about going forward or with a revised 5e?

I would miss out on using new races.

If revised 5e it would make for a worse game for me. I would have a hard time adding them in if they weren't in the book at all.

I like to have as few and simple houserules as I can.

I can only hope if 5e does get revised floating ASIs are gone and races have more unique abilities instead.

Hmm. I guess I'm not communicating my question well. Let me try it a different way...

If you sat down at somebody else's table to start a new campaign, and the DM said, "Everybody use floating ASIs...just put +2 and +1 wherever you want, but not on the same ability" how would the game play differently that what you are used to now? Or even how might it play differently?

(And if the answer is "I would get up and leave" I would still ask the same question: how would it change the game, such that you wouldn't want to be part of it?)

 

[abirdcall]

Hmm. I guess I'm not communicating my question well. Let me try it a different way...

If you sat down at somebody else's table to start a new campaign, and the DM said, "Everybody use floating ASIs...just put +2 and +1 wherever you want, but not on the same ability" how would the game play differently that what you are used to now? Or even how might it play differently?

(And if the answer is "I would get up and leave" I would still ask the same question: how would it change the game, such that you wouldn't want to be part of it?)

I would have a lessened connection to the world and other characters.

The same as I would if we did the same thing with racial abilities or got rid of classes.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I would have a lessened connection to the world and other characters.

The same as I would if we did the same thing with racial abilities or got rid of classes.

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere.

So, I can see that if we got rid of, say, classes, the game would be VERY different. In fact, so different that I'm not quite sure how to analyze that one.

So let's look at racial abilities: obviously if we didn't have racial abilities, then all of the sudden elves wouldn't be immune to sleep, and halflings wouldn't be lucky, and half-orcs wouldn't have Relentless Endurance (which, let's face it, is awesome) and the human wouldn't be forced to stumble around in the dark because everybody would want torches. So I can see how the game would actually change, in the sense that things would happen differently at the table, without racial abilities.

In fact, let me define it this way: if there were two tables side-by-side, one playing with racial abilities, and one without, an observer would be able to figure out which one was which. It might take a while, or not, depending on circumstances, but eventually you'd be able to see the difference.

(And that's even more true if there were no classes.)

But I still don't understand (yet!) what you are afraid would change with floating ASIs. In other words, how would the observer know which table had floating ASIs and which had fixed ASIs? (Ok, there are all KINDS of cheeky answers to that question, but you know what I mean. I hope.)

 

[Maxperson]

It depends on the goal.

If the goal is that the system should model the real world, and be an accurate depiction of strength, constitution and ect where biology matters to your core statistical values such as how much you can lift... then yes, no "race" should ever get a bonus because they are so close to the human average as to be indistinguishable.

If the goal is to make the numbers only for the purposes of game mechanics, to allow for hitting targets and damage to those targets then I have to ask why would we want them tied to race? Why encode it into the game that "the best" at a certain job is always going to be someone of a certain race/species? "Well if you want a highly intelligent accountant, you always hire a gnome" isn't something that we should encourage.

In between mirroring real life and nothing mattering at all, there's the fact that in D&D the races really are different. They are not so close to the average human as to be indistinguishable. That's why racial bonuses are appropriate. Goliaths really are stronger on average than the average human. Elves really are more dexterous on average than the average human. And so on.

However, the game was designed to include that +2/+1 or some variation of it, in the math of the system. It needs to be accounted for, so floating ASIs seem like the best solution. Other good solutions include increasing the point buy or changing the standard array.

You can prefer a change, but it doesn't actually fix anything. You can't fix something that isn't broken.

Do you think that the only reason Ms Sandwina was stronger than the strongest man of her era was because he was too weak to be a real strongman?

I don't think he was too weak to be a strongman in that era, but he wasn't anywhere near the peak that someone born physically male can achieve.

 

[Scribe]

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.

Care to wager?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Care to wager?

I don't want to wager, but I would love to know your answer to the question that I've been asking: is there some way the game would change...something that would (or would not) happen at the table that can be identified...if everybody had floating ASIs?

 

[Scribe]

I don't want to wager, but I would love to know your answer to the question that I've been asking: is there some way the game would change...something that would (or would not) happen at the table that can be identified...if everybody had floating ASIs?

At the table? At my table? Your table?

Just as it was when 5e released, its going to depend on your DM.

Is it going to have a material impact on the game? Absolutely. Any time a PC is able to get an Ability Score matrix that they wouldnt normally, thats an impact. Any time that Halfing has a +2 (which wouldnt happen at my table anyway lol) to Str, thats a change.

We are not talking the end of the world here, because its not as if the dice range, or balance, is so fundamentally tight, that these things are absolutely game breaking.

Just like its not a going to kill someone, to be unable to max out the bonus on a stat at character generation but yet 1000's of words have been spilled over how its fundamentally unjust to not let halflings have that +2 bonus to Str at day 1.

 

[Maxperson]

Im trying to get a sense of where you are coming from. In what sense would Tashas be making you "lose" something?

If you want your elf to have the +2 in Dexterity, you can still choose to put it there.

If I want my elf to have the +2 in Charisma, I can choose to put there.

Neither of us have lost the elf we want.

It's not about the elf you want, though. It's about the race as a whole. Elves are more dexterous as a race than humans are. Dwarves are more hardy than humans or elves.

 

[Bill Zebub]

At the table? At my table? Your table?

Just as it was when 5e released, its going to depend on your DM.

Is it going to have a material impact on the game? Absolutely. Any time a PC is able to get an Ability Score matrix that they wouldnt normally, thats an impact. Any time that Halfing has a +2 (which wouldnt happen at my table anyway lol) to Str, thats a change.

We are not talking the end of the world here, because its not as if the dice range, or balance, is so fundamentally tight, that these things are absolutely game breaking.

Just like its not a going to kill someone, to be unable to max out the bonus on a stat at character generation but yet 1000's of words have been spilled over how its fundamentally unjust to not let halflings have that +2 bonus to Str at day 1.

I read this several times, and I think what you are saying the material change would be is that you would see some starting characters that had attributes you wouldn't otherwise see. Which, I agree, is something an observer would be able to detect.

Is it fair to say you wouldn't...or don't intend to...do this yourself? E.g., you wouldn't personally play a halfling with a starting Strength of 16 or 17? If so, does that mean the part that would detract from your game experience is seeing other people at your table playing Strength 17 halflings?