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

[Bill Zebub]

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?

For the same reason that a dragon bite doesn't instantly kill any hero: sometimes game design trumps realism. You can express the idea that elves are dextrous without biasing the race toward rogues and rangers.

I suspect you don't like that particular game design philosophy*...at least as it interacts with racial ASIs...but it's the answer to your question.

*I would suggest coming to terms with it though. I think the writing is on the wall here.

(edit) Also, floating ASIs don't mean elves have the exact same dex as half-orcs and humans. It means that the rules for PC generation don't bias elves toward high dex. All the NPC elves in your game world can still have high dex, and chances are that if you give your own elf high Dex you have just biased all PC elves in your game world toward high dexterity as well.

 

[Maxperson]

On racial feats not competing with non-racial feats, I don't agree that they should be non-competitive. If you want them to happen on levels where you don't get regular feats, you are adding more power to the game.

In order to keep any semblance of game balance, that would force racial feats to be trivial. I would much prefer to have to choose between a powerful regular feat or a powerful racial feat. Do I envision my elf to be a paragon and take the Bowshot of Dooooooooom or do I take sharpshooter?

 

[Scott Christian]

Have you ever cried during a movie? Any movie, for any reason? Why was that? Do you think it was because you couldn't tell the difference between the fantasy of the movie and the reality of the world?

Yes. Many times. Heck, I still cry when I see Gandalf sigh after Frodo volunteers to take the ring. But, your points to Max were about violence. Hence my comments.

Do you think that just because it is a fantastical situation that there are people who don't have suicidal thoughts after a tragedy permanently alters their body?

Of course.

My mother was re-watching the Lethal Weapon franchise. Martin Riggs is a cop who is struggling with suicidal thoughts after the death of his wife and child. Do you think that just because it is in a movie, and is fantasy, that this never happens to anyone ever? That anyone effected by that story can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality?

Nope, it sadly does happen. And they can tell the difference.

Yes, obviously I can tell fantasy violence from real-world violence. I can enjoy watching a show where the characters struggle and fight and hurt each other in the pursuit of goals. But just because it is a fantasy doesn't mean I don't see the real-world parallels. I can watch a magical fighter struggle and fight against an abusive lover and recognize both that it is a fantasy and no one was really hurt, and also that there are people in a similar situation who are hurt by those acts every single day.

There is no doubt in my mind you can tell the difference and do see real-world parallels.

And no, despite having encountered more than one person who seemingly believes this, I will never understand how people can read or watch human tragedies unfolding and then shrug and say it doesn't affect them at any level, because it wasn't a real human tragedy. What is the point of storytelling if you can't feel an emotional connection to the story being told?

What would be the point of storytelling indeed? Thanos wipes out half of humanity - hopefully you feel for those that are lost. Hopefully, poor teenage Spidey gets the viewer to be sad.

But, there is also another side. Escapism. One that watches Legolas and Gimili hack through orcs and feel nothing for them. One that watches Black Panther and Captain America kill all those demon-dogs and not feel a thing. One that watches Lethal Weapon and watches Riggs be a cowboy cop and shoot all those bad guys, and again, feel blank or maybe even cheer.

That is why I feel there is a disconnect in your argument. You don't seem to be able to believe both sides can exist. You can make players feel for characters in a story. You can also make them feel nothing. All within the same campaign.

I guess the question is do you believe both sides can exist within the same story? Or is it always some layer of grey, that hinges of one definition of violence, one that must be attached to real-world characteristics?

 

[Maxperson]

For the same reason that a dragon bite doesn't instantly kill any hero: sometimes game design trumps realism. You can express the idea that elves are dextrous without biasing the race toward rogues and rangers.

But my way you can have your cake(game design of racial bonuses) and eat it, too(have racial feats). There's no need to take away the racial bonuses and create a nonsensical situation.

I suspect you don't like that particular game design philosophy*...at least as it interacts with racial ASIs...but it's the answer to your question.

*I would suggest coming to terms with it though. I think the writing is on the wall here.

Maybe in 6e, but not for 5e. For 5e floating ASIs are an optional rule.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

Maybe I am missing something, but how is "against type" so difficult to pin down. They literally give a description of it in the first few pages of the PHB.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But my way you can have your cake(game design of racial bonuses) and eat it, too(have racial feats). There's no need to take away the racial bonuses and create a nonsensical situation.

I'm not sure exactly what "your way" is, but if you mean racial ASIs then no. There's a trade-off.

And "nonsensical" is completely hyperbolic. You just don't like it. (Which is totally valid.)

Maybe in 6e, but not for 5e. For 5e floating ASIs are an optional rule.

"Writing on the wall" is an idiomatic expression that refers to events that have not yet come to pass. So, yes. (Although this is probably also true of future 5e supplements.)

 

[Scribe]

"Writing on the wall" is an idiomatic expression that refers to events that have not yet come to pass. So, yes. (Although this is probably also true of future 5e supplements.

Absolutely correct. Many of us called it months and months ago with the Ravenloft lineage UA.

I absolutely despise when design changes within an edition. I have had to deal with it in 40K too many times.

Wizards should have left it alone, or just pushed 6e.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure exactly what "your way" is, but if you mean racial ASIs then no. There's a trade-off.

And "nonsensical" is completely hyperbolic. You just don't like it. (Which is totally valid.)

It's literally, "This race is more dexterous when it's not actually a race that is more dexterous." That's what dex feats with no dex bonus produce. That's nonsense. The reason I don't like it is that it's nonsense. If it made sense, I wouldn't care.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Resembling is not irrelevant. Resembling is a connection, the thing you have claimed that you have none of towards real life. You've never directly Custer's Last Stand? Fine. Have you referenced any last stand ever? Congrats, you have made a connection between fantasy and reality. Is it a direct connection that paints a point by point picture? No, but it is a connection.

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.

I legitimately don't understand how you don't see connections. Nothing you bolded connects to a real world thing? Well, let me think, talking about guilt and innocence. Do you think that might connect to the theory of "Innocent until proven guilty"? The cornerstone of the American legal system? Does this mean you need to have an in-depth discussion of legal theory and how it applies in the American Legal System? No, obviously not. But just because we aren't having a 30 hour dissertation on legal philosophy doesn't mean that there is no connections that could be drawn.

And yes, language does connect the real world to the world of fantasy. Concepts and ideas connect to themselves.

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.

No. They aren't, and you have never demonstrated that an effective +1 to a stat is somehow important.

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.

A half dozen that have the exact same ability scores you think that might have been important? Yes, I took half a dozen races that have the exact same ability score to help demonstrate that having the exact same ability scores do not make them all the same race.

If it doesn't work on six races, why would it work on a hundred? If Orcs, Minotaurs and Goliaths who have the exact same ability scores aren't the same race, then why should we believe that extending that list t Orcs, Minotaurs, Goliaths, Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Humans, and Tabaxi would make them all the same race? I understood what you were saying, I'm just finding an example, smaller scale sure, but of EXACTLY the same scenario, and showing that your theory is wrong. If I can show that races with the exact same ability scores aren't seen as a single race... then why should we believe that if all races have the exact same ability score they will be seen as a single race?

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.

I'm not applying my perspective to your words, I'm applying it to your theory. And proving it false. We have exactly the scenario you describe, and the result is not what you describe. Yes, I know, "exactly" isn't right because it is only six races that should be seen as identical and not a hundred, but if it doesn't work for six, why should it work for a hundred?

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.

No, what you have done is far closer to an allusion. A reference does not have to be exact.

What you are trying to put forth here is the idea that if I said "you see a painting on the wall" that I can't possibly have any connection to anything in the real world, including paintings and walls, because I didn't say "you see a 1661 Vermeer hanging from the oak wall of dutch family home."

Language is the connection. The ideas are the connection. You can't talk about murder without referencing the idea of murder, the fact that murder happens, that it has certain elements and tropes associated with it. You can't say "murder isn't real" can you? Just because you are not referencing a specific murder, doesn't mean you aren't referencing murder.

 

[Chaosmancer]

They can, always could.

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

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

So DnD should only cater to a single taste? Then how can DnD contain Eberron? You are contradicting yourself.

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

There are options if you want to use them.

And "Core DnD" isn't the only type of DnD. FR isn't the only type of DnD.

So, what, we need to have them tightly defined so if we don't want to play those tropes we have to go in and remove them? Why not just... let them be undefined, and then if you want to define them in FR, define them then? What's the point of making the most basic version be hard-coded and then redefining it every single time?

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.

"this particular type of setting" being what? The game of DnD?

It already contains Theros, Eberron and Forgotten Realms, those are three radically different settings. Each of which would have radically different definitions for things. Why try and have all of them conform to a single style?