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

[Malmuria]

Oh drat, I'm confused again then.

If you are still free to put your ASIs wherever you want to, and you don't care where other people put their ASIs, what is it that you think might happen if the only rule were floating ASIs? Which halfling might be stronger than which goliath, such that it would bother you?

Right - everyone is basically on board for floating asi because it lets create the archetypes you want (and the dm can insist on 5e phb racial asi to automatically create all those archetypes). But some people also need to see their preferred archetype in the written rules. That's why I'm wondering if this is less about the actual play experience (which is customizable both with and without explicit rules) and more about the reading experience. They want to open up a dnd book and have it "feel like dnd," with all the familiar tropes and archetypes. That's comforting to them. If other people want to use the game for different fantasy archetypes (Avatar tLA, Dark Souls, anime), they can flip to the optional rules and use those. Something like that?

Case in point:

The fact that the rules would not represent that as an anomaly is the issue.

I want with the basic presentation a default assumption that what makes logical sense is reflected in the crunch.

A halfling default should literally never be presented as stronger than a Goliath default.

So the default phb character creation needs, for you, to present halflings in this way. If others want to do something different, there should be a page of optional rules in the phb or the dmg for those groups to use. Correct?

It makes no sense for what is a child's body to get a bonus to strength, when what we would see as absolute mountain of a being not be reflecting that I. Their stats.

That another table wants to represent an exceptional halfling isn't the issue.

It's a question of world building and logic (in before 'but dragons and elephants) that is easy to account for, as the game has done so for decades.

The idea that racial ASI in 5e have a whole lot in common with game design or even in-fiction worldbuilding from early editions is simply not accurate, or at the very least misses many of the reasons that races/classes were designed in a particular way in those earlier editions. There was no logic as to why non humans had level limits and class restrictions or could multiclass but not dualclass, for example, except to (try to) balance out all the benefits those races got at first level. Some of those benefits would be archetype-defining in a 1e game but barely register in a 5e game (dwaves' ability to discern sloping construction, for example). Small races like gnomes had no penalty to str. Elves were not allowed to be rangers. Further, unlike 5e, to-hit rolls were not affected by Str or Dex, but rather associated with class. Once you have a unified mechanic the logic behind ASI has to shift. If anything what you want is 3e-era game design--that was the more radical shift away from early basic and 1e/2e, and has more in common with 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

And you wrong for assuming that because a character chooses a +2 in strength instead of Dex that means it is completely different than their race.

If a race gets +2 to dex because the race is dexterous, then that applies no matter what. It doesn't go away and allow for a +2 to strength.

With a +2 to dex an elf has a range from 5 to 20 for its Dex score, with an average of 12.5. And adventuring PC will most likely have a minimum stat of 8 (well within the range for an elf) and is also pretty likely to have a Dex score of 12 or higher. The "strength" elf adventurer would be exceptionally strong for an elf but average (or a little better) in Dex when compared to the typical elf. That is hardly completely different from their race.

An adventuring elf will most likely have a minimum dex of 10, not 8(assuming no rolling). The strength elf would not have the bonus that they should have had and will have a lower dex than an elf would had it started with the same base number.

My position isn't that an adventurer with +0 to dex can't achieve a dex within the elven(+2 dex) range. My position is that since the entire elven race gets the +2 to dex, an elven adventurer will have that +2 regardless.

 

[Maxperson]

In 5e, the wood elf and grugach elf are the same thing.

Due to over simplification. They are not the same thing, though. WOOD elves are not WILD elves. One just lives in harmony with nature and the other is besically a devolved barbarian version of elves.

Therefore, to mechanically express the 5e Players Handbook description, requires the wood elf to float where the ability score improvements go. The +2 requires fluidity.

No. They've changed classes and subraces in newer books. They could easily just add Wild Elves with a strength bonus to the mix in a future book. there's no requirement for floating bonuses to achieve it. Grugach elves would have different subracial abilities anyway, so the DM should just create it with the player if the player really wants to play a wild elf. Just going with floating bonuses is the easy way out and still fails to create a Grugach elf.

 

[Malmuria]

It has to be because of hard coding. It can't be the former, because with floating bonuses literally every race has the same "pre-disposition" for dex as elves would.

Is it possible divorce character creation from the default assumptions of the larger game world? Or do you look at the mechanics of elves, and build out a game world by imagining 1000 elves generated as if they were PCs?

 

[abirdcall]

I do think a core difference in opinion, which is unlikely to be resolved through arguing, is whether the rules in the PHB on character creation are meant to (or should) be reflective of the entire population, or whether they are literally only for creating player characters.

And it's probably also pretty human to use our preferred interpretation to defend our position on the rules, when really it's the other way around: we choose an interpretation based on whether or not it supports our preferred rules. I know which interpretation I prefer, and which rule I prefer, and...hey, it's like magic!...they coincide. I honestly can't tell you which is the cart and which is the horse, though. Human brains are funny that way.

I think the rules in the phb are mostly for PCs.

3e tried to make NPCs follow the same rules as PCs. While sample NPCs in the MM mostly do it is also clear that the DM can just give them whatever abilities they want to.

I also want racial ASIs the way things currently are.

I think this goes against your idea that one interpretation of NPC rules leads to one preference for PC rules.

 

[abirdcall]

Right - everyone is basically on board for floating asi because it lets create the archetypes you want (and the dm can insist on 5e phb racial asi to automatically create all those archetypes). But some people also need to see their preferred archetype in the written rules. That's why I'm wondering if this is less about the actual play experience (which is customizable both with and without explicit rules) and more about the reading experience. They want to open up a dnd book and have it "feel like dnd," with all the familiar tropes and archetypes. That's comforting to them. If other people want to use the game for different fantasy archetypes (Avatar tLA, Dark Souls, anime), they can flip to the optional rules and use those. Something like that?

Case in point:

So the default phb character creation needs, for you, to present halflings in this way. If others want to do something different, there should be a page of optional rules in the phb or the dmg for those groups to use. Correct?


The idea that racial ASI in 5e have a whole lot in common with game design or even in-fiction worldbuilding from early editions is simply not accurate, or at the very least misses many of the reasons that races/classes were designed in a particular way in those earlier editions. There was no logic as to why non humans had level limits and class restrictions or could multiclass but not dualclass, for example, except to (try to) balance out all the benefits those races got at first level. Some of those benefits would be archetype-defining in a 1e game but barely register in a 5e game (dwaves' ability to discern sloping construction, for example). Small races like gnomes had no penalty to str. Elves were not allowed to be rangers. Further, unlike 5e, to-hit rolls were not affected by Str or Dex, but rather associated with class. Once you have a unified mechanic the logic behind ASI has to shift. If anything what you want is 3e-era game design--that was the more radical shift away from early basic and 1e/2e, and has more in common with 5e.

No, I am not onboard with floating ASIs.

 

[Yaarel]

Due to over simplification. They are not the same thing, though. WOOD elves are not WILD elves. One just lives in harmony with nature and the other is besically a devolved barbarian version of elves.

If the 5e wood elf can float its ability score improvements, then the 5e wood elf is both the grugach and the wood elf. A 5e Strength score +2 wood elf is an accurate grugach.

List a wood elf culture that has spear instead of longsword, plus trapping tools and survival, and the 5e wood elf is an excellent grugach.

The 5e wood elf is the grugach according to the flavor description. The floating ability score improvements make it also a grugach according to the mechanics.

Distinguishing cultural traits, is even more spot on. Elves have different cultures, just like humans have different cultures.

 

[Maxperson]

Is it possible divorce character creation from the default assumptions of the larger game world? Or do you look at the mechanics of elves, and build out a game world by imagining 1000 elves generated as if they were PCs?

In my opinion, no. If the default assumption of the larger game world involves elves have +2 to dex, then that is what characters get. I'm not against them getting some other non-racial bonus, like an additional +1 or +2 floating "adventurer" bonus to represent adventurers being very exceptional, but the +2 to dex has to remain in my opinion. And that requirement of "has to remain" is for my game. I don't care what other people do for their games other than hold the opinion that they should do whatever gives their group the most enjoyment out of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

If the 5e wood elf can float its ability score improvement, then the 5e wood elf is both the grugach and the wood elf. A 5e Strength score +2 wood elf is a pretty good grugach.

No it isn't. The difference is more than a strength/dex bonus.

 

[the Jester]

Ok. I think I get it now. Sorry if I'm being slow. Is it correct to say that you are agreeing with @Maxperson? That is, the rules for character creation are not limited to PCs, but also say something about the entire population of NPCs? And thus if those rules don't make goliaths stronger than halflings, it means that goliaths are not stronger than halfings?

And so it's not really about any actual impact on anybody's character and how it plays at the table, but rather in how the rules evoke the larger game world?

For me, this is exactly right.