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

[Maxperson]

I reread both three more times. I still stand by what I said.

Then we're done on this topic.

 

[Yaarel]

The Forgotten Realms is generic.

Not generic enough.

Especially how religions work and how the multiverse works, also which races and classes are present, etcetera, are highly specific to Forgotten Realms, and unlike other settings.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's a very different case. You're talking about real world examples of different breeds within a species. But in D&D, the situation is very different.

Unless you're suggesting that trolls, celestials, dragon, and fiends are all the same species as humans? Because all of those can breed with humans.

The notion that a species can only reproduce with other members of the same species* isn't even strictly true in the real world, and the notion of where one species ends and another begins can be pretty ambiguous. When you throw in fantasy rules for reproduction, which definitely don't follow the same rules as the real world as evidenced by half-dragons alone, I just don't think that argument sticks.

*(And that therefore the various pc races are all the same species, which seems to be the point you're making- please correct me if I am misunderstanding you!)

People keep defending the fact that they can say elves are more dexterous and dwarves are more hardy because they are different species. And then giving ludicrous example like "isn't an elephant stronger than a squirrel" to defend how different species are different.

Well, all I did was take a species (horse) and show that they can be fast, or strong, or hardy, or more Intelligent.

If comparing a gnome to a goliath is like comparing a vole to a rhino, then showing that dogs, horses and cats (all different species) have a massive variety within them, demonstrates that floating scores still make sense.


I don't really care who can breed with who, though it is amusing that dragons, fiends, celestals, genies and humans can all breed with just about anything it was just a bit of the sarcasm to remind people that those were both horse breeds, the same overall species.

 

[Maxperson]

Not generic enough.

Especially how religions work and how the multiverse works, also which races and classes are present, etcetera, are highly specific to Forgotten Realms, and unlike other settings.

But none of that intrudes into the PHB other than as a list of gods that are for the Forgotten Realms and some blurbs about what things are called in the various settings, and there are lists for other settings as well. The PHB Clerics and Paladins are generic, not Realms specific. The multiverse default is the Great Wheel, not the Realms World Tree. The classes that exist in the realms are the same that exist everywhere else. Same with races. Except for those specific non-realms settings like Athas that change things.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's not any of those other things as well. Again, in order for something to be against type, there must be a type to begin with. What you suggest would work to make interesting characters, but they are not sufficient by themselves to create an against type character.

What is against type for a Genasi anyways? Or an Aasimar? Or a Shifter?

Seems to me that there are a lot of races without a "Defined type" to go against.

 

[Yaarel]

To have clear good guys and bad guys means that the game is setting up these encounters and situations as being with good guys and bad guys.

Hobgoblins might be of all alignments, but the ones the PCs run into are the evil kind. Bad guys.

Elves might have all alignments, but the ones the PCs deal with are CG. Good guys.

I have no difficulty with individuals leaning toward good or bad.

I want alignment gone from the races. But, like Ideal and Flaw, Alignment is an ethical behavior that each individual character decides for oneself.

That said, adventures often present a situation where the commander is Evil, but the soldiers might not be.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Elves can trace their cultural lineage to the noble classes of fey courts, so a dose of aristocratic worldview isn't wholly without precedent.

True, but I can how slippery that slope is. After all, many aristocrats felt that they were superior to others based on their "noble blood" alone.

Take that, apply it to an entire race of people about their views of other "races".... it quickly gets bad. Even if you add in a concept like "Noblesse Oblige" which is basically "I'm better than you, therefore my responsibilities are to protect and aid you" that gets very paternalistic and can quickly slide into very bad places.


I'm not saying it has to, but it certainly teeters on the precipice of a deep gorge.

 

[Yaarel]

But none of that intrudes into the PHB other than as a list of gods that are for the Forgotten Realms and some blurbs about what things are called in the various settings, and there are lists for other settings as well. The PHB Clerics and Paladins are generic, not Realms specific. The multiverse default is the Great Wheel, not the Realms World Tree. The classes that exist in the realms are the same that exist everywhere else. Same with races. Except for those specific non-realms settings like Athas that change things.

Heh, I feel intruded upon.

A list of gods belongs in a setting. Not in a Players Handbook. It can also be in the DMs Guide as an example within worldbuilding tools.

The Players Handbook can give different examples. "In Dark Sun, the prominent cosmic forces are the elements, Earth, Air, Fire, Water, and the planet Athas as a lifegiving whole. In Forgotten Realms, the prominent cosmic forces are gods inhabiting domains in the Astral Plane, each having a portfolio of different cosmic forces. In Eberron, cosmic forces vary by culture, each of which manifests miraculous power, despite conflictive points of view."

But that is it. Describe. Dont prescribe.

Avoid strong-arming any particular setting.

 

[Scott Christian]

In my mind (you may disagree) the one about the attributes is a matter of balance. If players pick their own scores then either challenges get too easy, or the DM has increase the challenge. But since different tables will have different behaviors, it would be very hard to write published adventures. So a fixed system of attribute selection helps balance the game.

Sorry, but I do disagree. Balance, if you are adding 5% here or 10% there, is nominal at best. (This is just my opinion, much like yours.) I played in a game where we got both ASI and feats every fourth level. Nothing in the game became unbalanced, even with published adventures. I played in a game where players rolled their abilities, and for the first time in my life of 20 years gaming I rolled stellar, like a couple 18s a 17 and 16 stellar. Another person rolled close to the same. Nothing in the game became unbalanced. But, this is anecdotal. There may be others that have different experiences.

The fixed ASI rule has absolutely nothing to do with balance. It's about tradition. Getting rid of it doesn't (or shouldn't; it's possible there's an exception case I haven't considered) cause any other parts of the game to work less well, to change in any way. The only opposition to it is one of perception.

The roll your abilities or point buy or standard array is also tradition. It is no more or less a tradition than racial ASIs. Why should one have to go and another still stay? It is arbitrary.

So maybe "pick your own attributes" is a great idea, and we should open a thread and discuss it. I'm not saying we should dismiss it out of hand, I'm just saying that it's not really valid to compare it to getting rid of fixed ASIs.

Point taken. You are correct. Perhaps it is not the same and an ungainly comparison. I was thinking about traditions and the reasons why people feel the need to ditch or keep ASIs. But, I get your point, and you are correct.

If you want a valid comparison, pick something that is about tradition and flavor, not balance. "If we get rid of fixed ASIs, why not get rid of druids and metal armor?" (Which has been mentioned in this thread, although it does have a tiny balance component.)

For this I still think it is all tradition - randomizing or limiting attributes is tradition. No more greater or lesser than ASIs or making one race unable to play a specific class. But I do see where you are viewing it through the balance lens.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Or perhaps we should just get rid of simplistic idea of good guys vs bad guys? Perhaps we could have nuanced civilisations that have some good features and some bad features?

That would be nice, but it would require a lot of reworking.

Not only to raise up some of the "bad guy" civilizations but also because some of the "dark spots" of the Good Guys are beyond terrible, and yet not presented as bad, because those are the good guys