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

[Crimson Longinus]

You really misread or misunderstood what I wrote.

If you saw a person who was super-scary looking (Menacing), could stand right up after taking a blow that would kill another person (Relentless Endurance), and whose attacks could be devastatingly powerful (Savage Attacks), wouldn't you assume that person was stronger than someone who didn't have those abilities?

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not? What that has to to do with how strong they actually are?

And I still don't understand your stance here because an elf with a longbow and Dex 18 is going to inflict the exact same damage as a half-orc with a longsword and Str 18, so what's the problem with an elf using a longsword (which they come pre-proficient in!) and deciding to focus on Strength instead of Dex?

And if they're a warlock with agony or an evocation wizard they can add their charisma or intelligence to their attack damage. So what? These are different stats that represent different things.

Are you just bothered by the idea that a half-orc may not be able to out-lift an elf?

I want the strength score to represent the creature's strength and I want the half-orcs to be able to be stronger than elves, thus I want the half-orcs to be able to get better strength score. This shouldn't be hard to follow even is you wouldn't think it is necessary.

 

[Maxperson]

Either!

No sitting on the sideline for me. Racial bonuses for life!

 

[Malmuria]

Interesting video on this topic:

 

[Chaosmancer]

Maybe we shouldnt, and 'Gorilla' would have a number of subspecies which would not be floating? Exactly how we have (checking) 8 plus configurations of ASI for "Elf" which are defined as of the current edition.

We could do that, but like @Yaarel has been saying, it seems a lot easier to simply let the ASIs float to make different sub-species of elf, instead of writing new ones for the other dozen we haven't gotten yet.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Yes. (in relation to picking a class and race combination that have matching ASI and powered by particular Ability Scores)

So, to understand you correctly, you believe it is important that a race have fixed ASIs (and various other limitations, such as lowered and raised limits for different races, different racial feats, etc.)

But, you also believe, picking a combination that works well together, is also min-maxing.

I have a further question.

Do you believe min-maxing is bad? Are we using a neutral or negative connotation of min-maxing here.

Because if we are using a negative connotation, are you implying that you would prefer, certainly from a role play point of view, that players should gimp themselves by picking poor combinations?

Or are you saying that players must 100% justify their race-class combination in their backstory, and perhaps come up with that first?

I'm quite curious because this seems contradictory to me.

 

[Scribe]

We could do that, but like @Yaarel has been saying, it seems a lot easier to simply let the ASIs float to make different sub-species of elf, instead of writing new ones for the other dozen we haven't gotten yet.

In a case of a new game, new setting, or what have you? I'd agree. Absolutely less work, less content to provide, if Wizards would just say 'nope 2/1, do whatever.'

Which goes back to what I've said many times, what am I paying for?

In the case of these other race/subrace options that we have had for years, or in previous additions? The work is done.

I fully anticipate 6e will just be floating, do whatever, and thats 100% fine.

 

[Scribe]

So, to understand you correctly, you believe it is important that a race have fixed ASIs (and various other limitations, such as lowered and raised limits for different races, different racial feats, etc.)

Important to me, yes.

But, you also believe, picking a combination that works well together, is also min-maxing.

By my definition, reducing any negative or unhelpful attributes/rules, while maximizing synergy within your choices, is min/max.

Do you believe min-maxing is bad? Are we using a neutral or negative connotation of min-maxing here.

Absolutely not. Optimization is a perfectly valid approach to the game, and became increasingly popular with the rise of modern MMO's. Not to say it didnt exist before, but its almost seen as an assumption by some now.

Because if we are using a negative connotation, are you implying that you would prefer, certainly from a role play point of view, that players should gimp themselves by picking poor combinations?

Or are you saying that players must 100% justify their race-class combination in their backstory, and perhaps come up with that first?

I'm quite curious because this seems contradictory to me.

Since I dont see it as a negative, does that remove the contradiction?

 

[Faolyn]

I dont care at all if you have access to Tasha's.

While we understand that you enjoy watching others lose something they enjoy, I dont share that same spite.

You're not losing anything. You have all the information already in the books and from previous editions.

And you clearly didn't care that other people didn't have these rules for literally decades.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

They cut it for me.

Personally, I don't get this idea that only a +1 Dexterity over humans is enough to make them nonhuman, when, as @Hussar has pointed out many times, they are practically immortal, innately magical gender-fluid beings that never sleep and relive their past lives every night.

Sure, I get it, "we never see that in gameplay" but we see them being half an ASI better and Dex and suddenly they are bizarre aliens completely unrelated to humans?

There are a lot of things we can do with traits, feats, culture, tradition, language. Good Lord, think about what we could do with just the idea that the Elven language doesn't have a word for death? That their word for dying is closer to the idea of "passing through town". Go back and instead of saying that Planetars serve all gods, make some unique elven Celestials, who are the guardians who watch over their people. There are hundreds of things we could do to make them unique without having to try and shoe-horn in a +2.5% advantage over humans in dexterity checks.

 

[Maxperson]

Why not? Legolas could run for days without tiring, just like Gimli. Clearly some elves are incredibly hardy.

Wrong. D&D elves are not Tolkien elves. You accuse me of conflating and then conflate two different elf types.

No, you are arguing that a +2 Dex (+1 compared to humans) is vitally important to describing all aspects of elves, more so than any other aspect they have. Which is silly, since they have the exact same dexterity as Goblins, and yet no one would say goblins and elves are identical.

Don't tell me what I am arguing, because that ain't it. Like that's not even close.

Well you jumped into that conversation and started laying about with your argument, and I said that being able to use the same stats as you would have in a hard-coded system while using a free floating system is easier than the reverse. So, since you are saying I'm wrong you must be saying that using that it is harder to have an elf have +2 Dexterity and +1 Intelligence in a free-floating system than in a hard coded system.

I explained to you that human nature makes changing hard coding to floating work and the reverse fail.

Except variant human also gets +1 to a stat. Not +0. Also, with a feat, you can get a +2. In fact, a variant human can match point for point any +2/+1 combination of races that are "superior" to humans in those.

The human variant has floating +1s, so those bonuses say nothing about the race.

Goliaths are stronger and tougher because of +2 str, +1 con? Nope. Human with a +2 str, +1 con is trivial to make at level 1

Show me the human who gets +2 with purely racial bonuses.

Elves are more graceul and intelligent with their +2 Dex, +1 Int? Nope, human with a +2 dex and +1 Int is easily made.

Ditto. It's almost as if you're conflating racial bonuses with bonuses gained another way. Oh, wait.

So, it is kind of amusing to see people arguing as those humans are +0 across the board when that is utter hogwash.

Yes. Strawmen like that are indeed amusing. Nobody has argued that humans get no bonuses.

Your argument is based on Powerful Build being a +2 Strength. Because you keep talking about both like they are the same thing.

Wrong. All I'm saying is that one informs the other. I never said they were the same thing.

AH, so your argument is that Goliaths are bigger, so they should have a +2 strength. Cool, cool.

That's one of my arguments, yes.

Loxodon are on average 7 and a half feet tall and weigh 350 lbs, they do not get a bonus to strength.

Not really relevant. A bad decision on WotC's part does nothing to refute my argument.

A human trivially be taller and heavier than a dwarf, but the dwarf might have the strength bonus, or they might not. In fact, a halfling is just as strong as a loxodon, an elf, a tiefling, a dwarf, a tabaxi, all of whom are twice as big or more and have a far greater size advantage than the goliath over the human. Firbolgs are just as big as Goliaths, yet they are just as strong as humans with that +1 strength

So, I don't think "huge size advantage" is really holding water.

The difference between a human and dwarf is minimal, and dwarves are stockier than humans, so the weights are similar. Goliath are larger.

And "it isn't broken because I like it" doesn't mean it isn't broken.

Show me how it was mechanically broken.

So, woman with an better refined training techinique, food intake, ect could lift more than a man.... seems like that sounds like exactly my point. Weird. Almost as if you keep telling me I'm wrong without looking into what I'm saying.

If all you have been saying is that some strong woman somewhere is stronger than a man, then that point was over and done with 15 pages ago. Nobody on my side of things has claimed that all men are stronger than all women. I didn't realize that you were making a point that nobody was arguing against.