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

[Bill Zebub]

I mean, sure, the wording blatantly reflected my own position, but I really don't think it is any sort of evidence of weakness of anyone's position. But it is pretty interesting how people seem to basically be fine with the same 'imbalance' in one context but not in another. Which is not to say that context doesn't matter, but then we need to actually explore that context.


Yeah, and that is one sort of reasoning, and it is rather funny, because I feel pretty much the opposite. Like if the weakness is due something I intentionally chose, I'm fine with it. But magic items generally are something that is out of my control. Either the GM just awards them (either evenly or unevenly) or they're just randomised.

How about this: I see racial ASIs as being just like a +1 magic greatsword. Which is great if you're playing a fighter; not so great if you're playing a wizarrd.

The problem with this, is that if the game math 'expects' the magic items, or even if it doesn't but the players do, it isn't really some extra. It is mandatory part you must have or you're weaker than expected.

What math? From published adventures? I've always found it easy enough to adjust encounters.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Question on the magic items:
Let's pretend the party is all equal. They are level 8 and all of them have the same +8 on their attack roll. When the rogue gets a +2 dagger, and now they are at +10, does everyone else start to gripe? Cheer? Does the table even notice? I am truly curious.

No. At least, not in my group (unless somebody is secretly resentful). Nor do we see thread after thread after thread about how unfair it is that some people get magic items before other people. Which should be a sign that the racial ASI thing isn't about fairness, or comparison to other characters, but about something else.

I think it's simply, "Well, I can play the race that I think might be fun, or play the same old stereotypical race for this class and get +1 on all my rolls." And for a lot of people the latter is just too attractive.

 

[Maxperson]

Question on the magic items:
Let's pretend the party is all equal. They are level 8 and all of them have the same +8 on their attack roll. When the rogue gets a +2 dagger, and now they are at +10, does everyone else start to gripe? Cheer? Does the table even notice? I am truly curious.

At my table they are glad that the rogue has a magic weapon and can hurt things better.

 

[abirdcall]

Question on the magic items:
Let's pretend the party is all equal. They are level 8 and all of them have the same +8 on their attack roll. When the rogue gets a +2 dagger, and now they are at +10, does everyone else start to gripe? Cheer? Does the table even notice? I am truly curious.

Our table cheers.

They distribute the items to the characters who can best use them.

This is because they know failure of objectives or even TPKs are possible and they want to succeed and survive.

Some tables play differently where success is almost guaranteed and they are competing against each other for the most glory in achieving that success. In that scenario I would expect the rest of the party to gripe.

 

[Maxperson]

These really get to the core to the problem. Is elves having +2 to dex a cool perk that emulates the elven agility?

Yes.

Is +1 magic weapon that glows in the dark a nice extra?

Yes.

To many people they're not. They become the expected baseline, so if they don't have that it is perceived 'unfair.'

And you can't fix jealousy. Especially jealousy that isn't grounded in reality. The elf got +2 dex, the dwarf +2 con and the tiefling +2 cha. If the player of the tiefling thinks that it's unfair that the elf got +2 to dex when he also got +2...

And ultimately as long as people feel that way, I don't think this is a solvable issue except by removing the variety.

That doesn't stop the problem. The player of the tiefling gets a floating bonus. So what. As soon as the elf put his +2 in a stat that is different from the tiefling, he's going to perceive it as unfair.

The game simply has to dictate that all characters have a given bonus at given level, same for everyone.

The solution is to get rid of the problem player. Someone who doesn't understand that +2 = +2 and gets upset by it isn't someone I want at the table. Especially since he had the option to pick a race with the same +2 dex if had wanted.

 

[Maxperson]

What math? From published adventures? I've always found it easy enough to adjust encounters.

3e and 4e had game math that expected the PCs to have certain attack bonuses and armor classes by certain levels. It upped the monsters to compensate for those expected levels, so if the PCs didn't have them, they were at a disadvantage. 5e does not do this. It doesn't assume any magic items in the game math, so magic items are purely extra goodness.

 

[MGibster]

And here it is again. The need, the essential need, to have that extra +1 to remain "viable." As if the character is worthless with their +7 instead of their +8. It doesn't matter how many feats you add. It doesn't matter how you describe, partition or inflate a race's innate, divine and cultural abilities. If there is an extra +1, all that becomes null and void.

Magic items might allow your character to do all sorts of things and might not even give you a bonus. Some creatures could not be hit unless you used a magical weapon, many magic items confer useful abilities when used, some of them gave you extra spell slots, and of course some of the weapons could do cool things like cut off an opponents head in a single blow. And D&D, 3E at least, was built with the assumption that a PC would have X number of magic items at Y level.

 

[Aldarc]

I love when magic items feel magic.

Money turning magic into a commodity makes them feel too mundane.

I like attunement, both in the sense of needing to personally commune with the magic (and intention) of the item, and in the sense of limiting how many items are usable.

A player can be in a room with a thousand magic items, but if for various reasons only one is attunable, then the player has only one usable item. A player can pay a million bold pieces for a magic item, but if the item refuses to attune, then it is near worthless.

There are almost no magical shops because magic refuses to cooperate. Almost always, items transfer from one person to an other by means of implicit or explicit agreements. The process of attempting to attune during a short rest, establishes what its parameters are, whether lenient or stringent.

The magic item continues the intention of its creator. Normally, this intention is ambient, conveying either yes or no to the attunement. Sometimes the item conveys the personality of its creator.

Magic is magic. It disresembles a mundane technology.

Have you played games other than D&D because I feel like you may get more of what you want the game to be elsewhere than trying to get it from 5e D&D?

 

[Chaosmancer]

You mean the feat that gave you luck, skill, divine, etc. hit points? Yeah, you were tougher, but tougher =/= more con. And yes, you can learn to be tougher. That's what skill is.

Oh! So Constitution is luck then. Guess that answers the question about halflings you asked earlier. Because, you do realize that tough is +2 hp per level, and if you raise your constitution then you get +1 hp per level, it is literally one of the only things con does other than constitution saves. So, if more hp = more luck then constitution is the luck attribute.

You can argue that hp is divine providence or skill or luck or anything else, of course, but "tough" doesn't mean those things. The general understanding of that feat is that you get physically tougher.

Or a strength penalty. It's not a racial ABILITY. It's simply a cultural norm for the race to learn it.

More culturally learned skills?

Huh. This is a weird argument for you to make Max. Because you've just undercut your own objections.

If the "racial abilities" of elves can be culturally learned skills that aren't tied to a stat, and feats are learned skills that don't need to be tied to a stat... then why can't elves have racially "cultural feats" tied to dexterity? Even if they have no dex bonus you have already established that

a) feats are learned
b) it is perfectly acceptable to have learned abilities that have no ASI attached to them.

So... there is no problem.

False Equivalences are false. Stonecunning does not make the dwarves come across as wiser, smarter, or more enduring. An ability that makes elves more dexterous than other races would.

Here's a valid example of what I'm talking about. If dwarves were given the ability to endure a lot more than other races, which implies a much greater con, but yet had no con bonus.

Or else not. None of your examples is in any way a counter example to what I have been saying. Not one.

But, that's exactly what Tough is, a learned skill that allows them to endure a lot more punishment. So, since that is a learned skill that is in no way tied to a racial ASI, then we can give dwarves a culturally learned skill (feat) that allows them to be tougher with no racial ASI for con, and it isn't nonsensical.

Done and done.

Nobody said otherwise. My PC knows that elves are more graceful(dexterous) as a race than humans, though. That's a fact.

No, if your PC said that was a fact, they would be wrong. They may know that on average the average elf tend to be slightly more graceful than the average human, but that's about it.

Which then gets into some weirdness and some near eugenics level stuff, if you caring about that +2 Dex is because of roleplaying that your character cares about the fact that statistic. Which, to remind you, is what you said right here.

My PCs care about their races and belong to them, and since I'm the roleplaying that, I care about those things as well.

With regard to racial ASIs your PCs know about them and care about them, and therefore you do as well.

But, it doesn't matter, because we solved your "it's nonsensical" problem already.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I actually think that's a super-interesting point, but I wish you had presented it as such, and something worth probing and exploring to reach understanding, instead of as (unless I'm mis-reading you) evidence of the weakness of the opposing position.

I personally dislike racial ASIs, but I don't mind when somebody else has "better" magic items than I do. Maybe that's because I know that some day I might get an even better one (or, at least, it will strengthen my position when we start discussing who gets the next one). Or because it's not an intrinsic relative weakness of my character. Not sure.

Although I haven't thought a lot about this issue, I have thought a lot about why magic items are so compelling, and the answer I came up with may be relevant here: the reason we like magic items so much is that it gives us power beyond the deterministic progression of the rules. Sure, when you turn level 5 you get an additional +1, but that's just baseline progression. When you also get a +1 sword it puts you ahead of that baseline progression, and it feels like OVERWHELMING POWER.

At least, that's my theory.

I do know that in non-magical settings/genres, the absence of magical items always feels like a big hole to me. I think it's why I always return to fantasy.

I'd actually say that the opposite is more true.

+1 magic weapons can put you above the curve, and that can be fun, but the best magic items give you new abilities. Also, DMs tend to balance out magical item attainment. It won't be all at once, but generally you eventually find something of an equivalent to that +1 sword for other party members.

I'd also say there is a mental element hear that you nailed. To botch a quote from Captain America "Who are you without the suit?" If the fighter has a +1 weapon I know it isn't because they are a better fighter, but because they have better gear. If I had the same gear, we'd be evenly matched. This is also why I don't like the "solution" that I've seen before that if a player is behind the curve in terms of ASIs that they just get given better items. It feels like a crutch.

Now, one place that I can sort of see this being a bit more murky, are items that increase spell save DCs. Not only are these items incredibly powerful, but they are far more powerful than a simple +1 to spell attacks. Because they allow your daily abilities to land more frequently, and raising that is something you can't do very often, and may even be impossible to do depending on your scores.