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

[Bill Zebub]

I just mean to say that if only 1 race had any dex beneficial abilities at all then it could still appear to be the ‘statistical’ pick for certain classes and offset the work of generalizing racial ASIs.

Oh, I see.

Well, first I would think/hope that multiple races would get abilities that evoke grace, speed, hand-eye-coordination, etc.

But even if just one race got such a thing, I do think it's possible to design it in such a way that it doesn't have narrow class synergy. For example, you could have advantage on any ability checks or saving throws made to avoid/escape the Restrained condition. (Halflings, maybe?) Although that might have more thematic appeal for rogues and monks, from an optimization standpoint it wouldn't feel like you would have to choose that race.

Of course, there will always be those who have some argument about why these abilities benefit some classes more than others (e.g. Halfling "Lucky" doesn't do anything when you are buffing/healing, or making attacks that have saving throws, so some classes and builds are more likely to see benefits). But in my mind that's just an excuse to not address the problem of racial ASIs. Perfect being the enemy of the good and all that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not to any specific real world event.

Yes, exactly. I never said there was a connection to a specific event. I said a connection to the real world.

It's EXACTLY the point. I'm sayin that +2 dex gives reason for elves to have dex based abilities. Luck has no stat, so halflings don't need to have a high luck stat to warrant having that racial ability. With no stat, anyone can get the lucky feat and be an individual who is lucky. If luck were a stat, I would want halflings to have +2 at it to represent their luck. I'd also want a luck requirement of 13+ for other PCs to get the lucky feat.

It's all simple and works together.

Then you could say it is non-sensical for elves to have access to Heavy Armor Mastery, Great Weapon Master, Durable, Tough, Grappler. Inspiring Leader, Polearm Master, Savage Attacker, Crusher or Tavern Brawler. After all, those abilities are based in Strength, Constitution and Charisma and elves don't get a +2 to any of those scores.

How do you justify that under this framework you are proposing where you can only get feats that give you abilities if you have a+2 of the associated score?

Because of the stat which you inappropriately dismissed above. MY point is about stats informing abilities that relate to those stats. Your bad example doesn't somehow counter my point.

Except, they don't. That's not what stats do. Or racial abilities. These things are not tied directly together like you seem to think.

Not to the specific event it doesn't. At best you can claim an extremely tenuous connection to child murders by caretakers in general.

Which is literally my claim!! I wouldn't say it is extremely tenuous, since child murder by a caretaker is exactly what you were talking about, but that is the connection I'm speaking of. Not to a specific event, to the reality in general.

There is no reference. A reference is TO something specific. It's not a general statement. In order to reference that specific murder, I have to call it out specifically like I did the Eiffel Tower in the other post.

No, a reference does not need to be specific in the way that I am using it. I'm not using it like a reference page of a textbook, I'm using it in the manner of "to refer to". If your whole problem with my idea is that you don't like the word I used, then too bad. I'm not going to argue over definitions with you. You get the concept well enough.

Correct. My quote doesn't say what you think it says. That's the problem. You can quote someone saying that they like bananas, but when you respond, "So you're saying bananas are your favorite fruit." you've changed things and showing that you don't understand what the person said. What I said and what you are "interpreting" are two different things.

No no. It just doesn't mean what you want to it mean. It means what I meant. Note the word "basically" in there. It means that it's not 100%. They are not in fact one race, as I said in my earlier response to you when I said that you "could still be an elf without the +2 dex, it would just be an incomplete elf." If it was 100%, I would have said, " If every race gets the same racial bonuses, they are one race with varied looks and some differing abilities." Do you understand the difference there?

That is literal nonsense. So what, it isn't that orcs, minotaurs and goliaths (who still get the same racial bonuses) are one race, but they are 80% the same race? 75%?

The same issue applies to your statement as before, only worse. First of all, you are saying that they aren't the same race. If two things are 75% the same, then they aren't the same. Secondly, again, having the same racial bonuses doesn't make them two similiar, as we see when we literally look at races with the same racial bonuses in the game right now.

I understand the difference between what you said and what I heard... which is basically that you didn't want to commit to your idea, so you used a single word to indicate that they weren't completely identical... which is kind of obvious considering that saying 3 ft tall dragon people and 9 foot tall elephant people are the same is nonsense, no matter what bonuses they get to their imaginary numbers.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Only on the individual level. Over an entire race it says a lot. It says that this entire race is on average more dexterous than that entire race over there that doesn't have a bonus. Having only abilities does not say that.

And when I'm playing Sid Meyer's Civilization then I care about the entire group of people, when I play about DnD I care about my individual PC.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Would you be supportive of something like 4th Edition's racial powers?

I think that's close to what you and some others have suggested. It's just not a "feat."

Yes, but I'd want to have more of them at later levels.

One thing that annoyed me aesthetically about 4e was that when you got the paragon level, you could choose between a racial paragon and a class paragon. And in every instance I ever saw, the classes were just better, because they synergized with what you were actually doing. But the racial ones were really flavorful. The problem was, I think, they were tied to these racial abilities you got at level 1, which became less and less part of your toolkit, and so weren't synergizing with abilities you gained 10 levels later.

An example of something like that in 5th Edition would be the Dragonborn breath weapon. I think that ability could be designed better, but it's an example of a unique racial ability.

Keying racial abilities to different pillars of play could be a way to explore options.

Breath Weapon is (I would think) a combat pillar ability. Other races (like Elves) might have something ranger-y.

All of the abilities would be useful for any class, but in different situations. So, maybe the Dragonborn Fighter gets more damage output and options more geared toward combat, while the Elven Fighter gets abilities which give that character capabilities to contribute to the party in other ways.

In a way, that could allow a little bit of what I'd call "soft multiclassing" without needing to actually multiclass. I think maybe that's kinda the idea behind racial weapons (?) but it's just not implemented well.

A frail wizard likely doesn't benefit much from trying to use a longsword in melee, but being able to maneuver through the woods or breath weapon enemies who get too close are things which do.

Hmm, that's not a bad idea.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I just mean to say that if only 1 race had any dex beneficial abilities at all then it could still appear to be the ‘statistical’ pick for certain classes and offset the work of generalizing racial ASIs.

I was thinking about this, and I wondered about offering multiple feats to choose from, some tied to different scores. Because, as Yaarel pointed out, Charisma should be a big deal to elves, so I could see some charisma abilities as well making sense.

Of course, I'm also starting to see that this would be a BEAR to design, because you'd essentiallly need nearly a thousand feats to cover all the races currently in the game, and making that many unique, powerful, and interesting abilities is incredibly difficult.

 

[Scott Christian]

Not the point. You are saying it doesn't make sense for a dex feat to be given to a race with no dex bonus. But we can give the Lucky feat to races that aren't known to be lucky, and that isn't nonsensical.

So, why would it be nonsensical to give a race known for dexterity and grace feats to amplify that instead of a dex bonus? Again, you make a claim, but when I show something similar you want to rely on it not being identical to act like it isn't a critique of your claim.

This is a good point. I think it comes down to the PHB describing races, and then we take that description and apply it to the actual race. Whereas, feats we apply to individuals. Which, in a way, might lead us to a solution. Maybe they could use group and individual characteristics?

 

[Scott Christian]

If a race known for it's dexterity and grace(elves) doesn't get a dex bonus, then it is just as dexterous as a race of turtles(tortles) which also don't get a dex bonus. Both entire races average the exact same dexterity number. If those two races are identically dexterous, then one race having dex based abilities that imply a high dexterity is absurdly out of place. There's nothing to justify those abilities.

This seems clear. Very clear. And logical. I get how someone doesn't want the bonus and just wants the racial feats, but that does seem a bit illogical.

That said, I think it is hard from a balance perspective. Elves are described as so great, at so many things, that it makes it difficult for them to be balanced.

 

[Scott Christian]

I never said reflects reality. I said it references it. There is a difference.

I'm not saying every game has to adhere to reality, but the language of fantasy is the same language of reality. The ideas of fantasy can still be found in reality. You can't separate them. You can't say "tree" without referencing what a tree is. You can't have war, without referencing what war is.

Fair enough. Use semantics and don't answer the question.

Of course you can choose to ignore it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. Which is what he is saying, that somehow he can have a war in his game, and it in now way bears any similarities to or has any connection to the idea of war in reality.

I keep reading specifics. Not the definition of war, which is what you are implying with your answer here. So if you are saying the player must reference (be able to define) what a war is in order to understand the war going on between the elves and dwarves, okay. You are right. But go back and read what you are saying. That is not what you imply. You imply a specific act of war at the table will create references to a specific act of war in real life.

 

[Scott Christian]

Oh, I see.

Well, first I would think/hope that multiple races would get abilities that evoke grace, speed, hand-eye-coordination, etc.

But even if just one race got such a thing, I do think it's possible to design it in such a way that it doesn't have narrow class synergy. For example, you could have advantage on any ability checks or saving throws made to avoid/escape the Restrained condition. (Halflings, maybe?) Although that might have more thematic appeal for rogues and monks, from an optimization standpoint it wouldn't feel like you would have to choose that race.

Of course, there will always be those who have some argument about why these abilities benefit some classes more than others (e.g. Halfling "Lucky" doesn't do anything when you are buffing/healing, or making attacks that have saving throws, so some classes and builds are more likely to see benefits). But in my mind that's just an excuse to not address the problem of racial ASIs. Perfect being the enemy of the good and all that.

This is spot on. There will always be synergy, be it ASIs, racial feats, backgrounds, etc. The primary difference is one gives a bonus (+1) in combat. And, no matter how many times it is pointed out that the +1 isn't everything - it becomes everything. For some reason, the majority of players cannot seem to disassociate that extra +1 with a feeling their character is a lot weaker than someone with the bonus.

 

[Scott Christian]

Of course, I'm also starting to see that this would be a BEAR to design, because you'd essentiallly need nearly a thousand feats to cover all the races currently in the game, and making that many unique, powerful, and interesting abilities is incredibly difficult.

I agree completely. I would add that it is impossible to do without most of it being superfluous. There are only so many dials and knobs to turn. Another problem with it is many of those feats would be very specific in nature, which is either forgotten about by the player or comes up once every six sessions. Players want feats they use every session. Even something really cool, like the halfling being able to escape a grapple more easily might come up once in an entire campaign. So while it sounds cool, and seems to add flavor to the halfling recipe, it really just is a pinch of salt in a giant pot of soup.