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

[Bill Zebub]

So if the +2 Dex isn't enough to make them nonhuman (and I sympathize) what is? Because pointy ears, darkvision and trance aren't going to cut it for me.

More seriously, do the differences between Halflings and Elves (and Aarakocra!) cut it for you? Or do they feel functionally the same because they all get +2 Dex?

 

[Faolyn]

Basically what the PHB says. And ultimately if the score called 'strength' has no correlation to how strong the creature is in the fiction, I really see no point in having it. If it is just way to arrive to some level-appropriate bonus, then just get rid of it and give all characters the bonus their class assumes and do not pretend it represents anything.

But Strength does have a correlation to how strong you are. It determines your carrying capacity and your attack and damage bonuses when using Strength-based weapons. And you still haven't explained why a +2 Strength is better for you than all those other traits given in the half-orc's stats (or the stats of any of the--lemme count--ten other races that get +2 Strength).

You seem to be saying "if a <race> isn't the best at <particular stat>, and more importantly, if a <race> isn't better than <another race>, then there's no point in playing the game at all." Which is a very strange and ultimately self-defeating attitude to have.

 

[Faolyn]

More seriously, do the differences between Halflings and Elves (and Aarakocra!) cut it for you? Or do they feel functionally the same because they all get +2 Dex?

I keep asking this question (in this thread and in others) and nobody has answered me yet.

 

[Malmuria]

Basically what the PHB says. And ultimately if the score called 'strength' has no correlation to how strong the creature is in the fiction, I really see no point in having it. If it is just way to arrive to some level-appropriate bonus, then just get rid of it and give all characters the bonus their class assumes and do not pretend it represents anything.

I don't think it is a good faith argument to say that floating ASIs make strength meaningless. In fact, it is much more meaningful than in pre-wotc editions because of the overall importance of ability scores for deriving stats (vs, classed based THAC0). I see the argument of how, if you use the character creation section of the phb as a world building guide, floating ASI means that one aspect of the races is somewhat homogenized, but it's a very very far leap from there to "stats are meaningless."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But Strength does have a correlation to how strong you are. It determines your carrying capacity and your attack and damage bonuses when using Strength-based weapons. And you still haven't explained why a +2 Strength is better for you than all those other traits given in the half-orc's stats (or the stats of any of the--lemme count--ten other races that get +2 Strength).

You seem to be saying "if a <race> isn't the best at <particular stat>, and more importantly, if a <race> isn't better than <another race>, then there's no point in playing the game at all." Which is a very strange and ultimately self-defeating attitude to have.

I don't think it is a good faith argument to say that floating ASIs make strength meaningless. In fact, it is much more meaningful than in pre-wotc editions because of the overall importance of ability scores for deriving stats (vs, classed based THAC0). I see the argument of how, if you use the character creation section of the phb as a world building guide, floating ASI means that one aspect of the races is somewhat homogenized, but it's a very very far leap from there to "stats are meaningless."

This is what I was responding to:

Imagine you had an elf fighter with an 18 Strength standing right next to a half-orc fighter with an 18th Strength (with all other variables being equal as well). Because of their traits and the cultures people imagine half-orcs and elves to have, I'd say the vast majority of people will imagine the half-orc as being stronger-seeming than the elf is. The fact that they both get a +4 to attack and damage rolls literally doesn't matter here--after all, either of them would get the same +4 if they had an 18 in Dex instead.

An argument that people imagine half-orc with same strength as an elf to be stronger. To me this sounded like saying that the stats are not the actual measure of who is stronger. Except now Faolyn says that they are... So the half-or is not stronger, but for some reason people still imagine they are? And this is somehow a good thing? Certainly the rules should try to align with how people imagine things to be and a disconnect between these two leads to dissonance and is undesirable?

 

[Malmuria]

It is no surprise to me that the same people who were arguing that druids can wear metal armour are arguing for floating racial ASIs.

It is a move away from class/archetype based design and towards free form point buy as well as strategy mechanics first rather than narrative first design.

I don't think people should be free to make any and all character concepts.

I want there to be specific ones presented in the books to choose from and then to have individualized personalities applied to them.

We have games like GURPs and I have no interest in that.

I don't think GURPS is the reference for this kind of game design. Rather, I think the game moves a tiny teensy bit closer to more minimalist games like The Black Hack, Knave, or The White Hack--incidentally all games largely derived from or compatible with OD&D and/or B/X. (or, a game like Worlds Without Number, also b/x compatible but with 3e elements)

Further, I don't think the difference in game design is between "strategy" vs "narrative." After all, Fate is a very flexible, narrative-first general purpose toolkit, but the polar opposite of Gurps. It's more a matter of how detailed you want your ruleset to be, and how much that detail (mechanical or otherwise) should correspond to a particular fiction. From that perspective I think floating ASIs still allow you to do FR-style fantasy, fwiw.

 

[Scribe]

I keep asking this question (in this thread and in others) and nobody has answered me yet.

No, we need additional bonus/penalty caps on Stats, Racial Feats, racial Paragon abilities, to properly differentiate between the various PC options.

What we dont need, is the removal of these systems if we are looking to have different PC options beyond 'kinda not humans'.

 

[BookTenTiger]

For those arguing against floating ASI's, have you tried making a character using the optional Tasha's rules?

I'll admit I became much more in favor after I made a few characters with floating ASI's.

 

[Scribe]

For those arguing against floating ASI's, have you tried making a character using the optional Tasha's rules?

What would that possibly change? So you can put your stats wherever is most min/max for the class you are choosing. Thats literally it.

 

[BookTenTiger]

What would that possibly change? So you can put your stats wherever is most min/max for the class you are choosing. Thats literally it.

Have you tried it?