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

[Maxperson]

I fully agree with this, although I have to admit I'm puzzled that @Micah Sweet also "liked" this post, since it involves getting rid of racial ASIs. Are we closer on this than I thought?

But, yes, I would love to see more racial abilities that convey the same themes, but with less class-specific synergy, as the ASIs. Which also means you want to minimize synergy with specific attributes. Right? Because if an ability only really works with a high Dexterity score, that ability is going to be great for Rogues and less great for other classes, making that race "better" for rogues, which is the very thing we're trying to avoid. So, for example, for a limited-use ability I would make it proficiency bonus times per long/short rest, not attribute bonus times.

I would also love to see better class abilities and racial feats, but for me those things don't negate the need for racial stat bonuses. Why would elves have all kinds of dex based feats and abilities when they have the exact same dex(as a race) as half-orcs and humans? The dex bonuses give reason for those dex based abilities and feats to exist. They're a more agile race, so they get abilities along those lines.

 

[Maxperson]

How? How can you talk about Evil without in any way shape or form referencing the real evils done to people in the real world?

DM: "You come across a man standing over the body of the elf he just murdered for being more dexterous than he was. What do you do?"

Players: "Wow. That's a right evil bastard for doing that. Let's take him in and deliver him to the sheriff."

Note how at no time did that game play ever have to stop and discuss how evil murder would be in the real world. There were no discussions about how it might not be evil, because he didn't eat them like Jeffrey Dahmer, or you might need to murder 11 people like real world serial killer X before you are considered evil. There was no reference to the real world at all.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I said they never encounter real world murder, tyranny, theft or war. And they don't. I never kill my players(or anyone else), tyrannize them, steal from them, or enlist them in the army.

Fantasy versions are not connected to the real world by anything other than the same word. No war of mine has a connection to the 100 Years War or Vietnam. No tyrannical leader is connected to Yasser Arafat or Putin. None of that. Any such "connections" are created as fictions in the mind of the beholder, as is common these days.

So, somehow, you have encountered war in the game, that in no way ever resemebles or references any part of war in the real world.

No one ever dies I suppose? The soldiers all come home perfectly healthy. The invading force never destroys anything of value. People never lose their land. Or do all those things happen? Things which are direct references and connections to the reality of war.

I mean, you are basically saying you have somehow figured out how to simulate war without talking about or having any connection to war. Which, I'm sorry, is impossible. You can't do it. Now, if your point is that you have never ran a war that simulated the real war of Vietnam, including the locations and accurate casualities... well I'd say that is obvious, but if you've ever had a group local to an area ambush foreigners or take them out with traps... you've certainly got a connection to the Vietnam war.

Wait. Your group has to stop whenever the PCs encounter a murder and discuss the real world implications of murder and good/evil in order to understand that the murder in game was evil? That seems very exhausting.

My group doesn't do that. We just accept the evil of the murder with no discussion of real world good and evil and we continue playing.

No, we don't have deep philosophical discussions on every aspect of the game. But we do at least acknowledge that murder is a thing that happens in real life. We don't need to state it, but we know it happens. Heck, we've had PCs and NPCs talk about self-defense. Running a murder mystery, we've had to interview witnesses and talk about guilt and motive.

These are connections to real aspects of murder and discussions of good and evil. The things that you are saying you don't have. "Connection" doesn't mean "1 for 1, the exact same thing, people who die in the game die in real life" it means you can draw a line between ideas and concepts in the game to the reality of the world. The vizier killed the king to take over the throne? That happens in real life. Discussing that plot has a connection to what we understand of political assassination in the real world. It informs the discussion. Especially when we realize the princess is still alive, because he wants to marry her to legitimize his claim. Again, that is connected to our understanding of real world politics

By making a dwarven wizard? Nothing. That has never been my objection in this thread.

Then why are people saying we are taking away their ability to play against archetype? What is the objection then?

Of course you are. You know I said ALL races, not just a few of them. You continue to show that you cannot or will not understand what I am saying about racial bonuses, so I will continue not to discuss that with you.

Even literally using your exact words isn't good enough to show that I am engaging in good faith? I'd ask you what I possibly misunderstood in using your exact words, twice, and showing exactly how my point flows from yours, but you will continue to refuse to talk about it, because I don't agree with you, and therefore I must either be unable to understand you or willfully ignoring you.

Can't be that I have a different perspective, that would mean you have to engage in a conversation where you could be wrong.

 

[Malmuria]

You know, one massive improvement in 5e over the last couple of editions is the speed of character generation, and many of the suggestions here basically boil down to, "Take more time and do more customizing of your race". I think it's worth remembering that you're making a 10-20 minute process substantially longer when you introduce more decision points and more stuff to read (e.g. racial feats as part of your building process).

I never want another version of D&D where it takes more than an hour to build a 1st level character. That's just a personal preference, but my God is it a strong one. Honestly, if I can't generate a character in 15 minutes, the game has failed at one of the things I truly believe should be a major priority.

That's why I think racial asi should either be removed all together or folded into class (in fact, the whole process of rolling for stats and then looking up derived modifiers is confusing, but probably is too nostalgic to be removed).

Ideally I would be able to say to a new player, "ok, do you want your halfling to be quick, lucky, or persuasive," or something to that effect, mark it down, and move on. Also ideally each race would fit on a two-page spread, with the left maybe being text and art, and the right being a bunch of feats/abilities in little boxes.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think you're conflating not mechanically optimized with against type, and they are not the same. Taking dwarves, I wouldn't call a dwarven rogue or ranger against type, and bards and druids are iffy examples too, in my opinion.

I have literally been told that a dwarven rogue or a dwarven ranger is agaisnt type. I've used Dwarven Bards as a direct example in threads like this, and been told that they are supposed to be bad at being bards, because they aren't cheerful enough.

So, some people are conflating a lot of things. And if we can't even agree on what "type" a dwarf is, then how is it even a concern if some people feel like it is going to be harder to play against it?

Edit: Case in point, three posts after yours, Scribe says that I was correct in my typing of dwarves. So, you say it is in type, they say it isn't, and they are upset about not being able to play against type by playing what you see as in type.

See how this is a problem? How we end up with wanting to do things that are perfectly within the archetype, and at the same time being told that they want to do that same thing by playing against the archetype, and that it should be harder because it is "against" even when we see it differently?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I see that as a feature. I LIKE things being so defined.

And most of the rest of us don't. Heck, just above your post I have someone telling me that I'm wrong, and rogues, druids, rangers and Bards are perfectly in type for dwarves.

Instead of trying to balance the game where only one "type" is enforced, why not let people make their own choices?

I understand now, I'd agree there's not a whole lot mechanically, as it's not a PC option that is as tightly defined as Elves, or Dwarves.

And that's fine. So if that PC option isn't tightly defined and that's fine, why isn't it fine to loosen up elves and dwarves?

In world's that are only or mostly human, sure.

Other species are often included to highlight a different aspect of humanity or to act as a foil. In a D&D/FR like setting with many options, I don't personally see Humans, as the primary representation of 'nature loving eco warrior'.

That would be an elf subspecies, or gnome, most likely to me.

Sure, but humans also wouldn't be weird to fill that niche. They wouldn't be my first thought, but they wouldn't be "against the grain" to pick.

 

[Chaosmancer]

DM: "You come across a man standing over the body of the elf he just murdered for being more dexterous than he was. What do you do?"

Players: "Wow. That's a right evil bastard for doing that. Let's take him in and deliver him to the sheriff."

Note how at no time did that game play ever have to stop and discuss how evil murder would be in the real world. There were no discussions about how it might not be evil, because he didn't eat them like Jeffrey Dahmer, or you might need to murder 11 people like real world serial killer X before you are considered evil. There was no reference to the real world at all.

Really?

You referenced someone killing someone else out of jealous, a real evil that is really done in the world.

You also referenced law enforcement, a real thing that really exists.

So, even a cursory glance shows TWO connections to real life and real life forces of good and evil. References, if you will. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that "referencing real life" means "in-depth philosophical discussion of the nuance of real life and the details of key events". That isn't it.

 

[Maxperson]

So, somehow, you have encountered war in the game, that in no way ever resemebles or references any part of war in the real world.

Resembling is irrelevant. Almost nothing that doesn't involve magic or the supernatural that you can come up with would fail to resemble some crappy and biased part of the real world history. A coincidental resemblance doesn't matter. And no, I've never referenced part of a war that happened in the real world. There's no need and it would just detract from the game. I've never had to reference Custer's Last Stand or the Battle of the Bulge.

No, we don't have deep philosophical discussions on every aspect of the game. But we do at least acknowledge that murder is a thing that happens in real life. We don't need to state it, but we know it happens. Heck, we've had PCs and NPCs talk about self-defense. Running a murder mystery, we've had to interview witnesses and talk about guilt and motive.

No I don't. I've never had to stop a game when there was a murder and acknowledge the real world at all. None of the bolded stuff connects it to any real world thing, though. Having a PC interview witnesses and talk about guilt and motive don't form a connection to the O.J. investigation.

Do we have the real world to help us understand what terms mean? Yes. That's language. Does that connect it to the real world versions of those things? No. There's no connection to any real world event.

Then why are people saying we are taking away their ability to play against archetype? What is the objection then?

For some races the racial bonuses are an important part of type. Just not for all of them, or really even most of them at this point.

Even literally using your exact words isn't good enough to show that I am engaging in good faith?

Dude. First, you twisted my statement about all races into a statement about a half dozen. Second, I said before that without racial bonuses the races are incomplete and missing an important part of their racial identity. Remove that piece and you might as well just go all the way.

Can't be that I have a different perspective, that would mean you have to engage in a conversation where you could be wrong.

Your perspective is relevant to you only. It has no relevance to what I'm saying. If you try to apply your perspective to my words, you are going to continue to get what I'm saying wrong. Don't do it.

 

[Maxperson]

Really?

You referenced someone killing someone else out of jealous, a real evil that is really done in the world.

Really? Which one? Which specific murder of jealousy did I reference? Using language like "Murder" and "Evil" only involves language. It doesn't reference something in the real world. To reference something in the real world I actually have to REFER to it. Like, "In the distance you see a tower shaped a lot like the Eiffel Tower." Note how I referenced the Eiffel Tower there.

Maybe your problem is a failure to understand what reference means.

 

[Scribe]

Instead of trying to balance the game where only one "type" is enforced, why not let people make their own choices?

They can, always could.

Homebrew. Eberron. Whatever. Don't even play D&D.

Solving for everyone, solves for nothing. It's undefined.

And that's fine. So if that PC option isn't tightly defined and that's fine, why isn't it fine to loosen up elves and dwarves?

Because, elves and dwarves in 'core D&D/FR/Tolkien' style settings, are defined.

There are options if you want to use them.

Sure, but humans also wouldn't be weird to fill that niche. They wouldn't be my first thought, but they wouldn't be "against the grain" to pick.

Maybe they wouldn't be weird, but they would never be my default as the 'nature race'.

Regardless, I have a feeling we are dramatically far apart in our positions, and while I understand what you are after, it's completely anathema to how I see this particular type of setting. I'll literally never agree it's a better approach to have less definition.