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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

See now, if you couldn't get stat bumps just because you reached level 4, an item that increased your Wisdom would be pretty cool.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh! So Constitution is luck then.

Are you even aware of what hit point are? Or are you aware and being disingenuous?

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.

Or I just understand that hit points are abstract. Here, this might help you.

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.'

Yes it does. Tough just means hard to kill and there are many ways to represent that other than physical. The feat made no claim of physicality.

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.

If it's a learned skill, they can, but then they..............................................won't be more graceful and dexterous than other races.

If you want a racial ability to represent a higher level of grace and dexterity than say humans, then it's not a learned skill and you need the stat bonus in order to justify it. Otherwise it's nonsense.

So... there is no problem.

That was a nice try, but no. The problem still exists.

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.

Do you not know what dexterous means?

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.

Holy way off into left field Batman! No, nothing I said comes close to touching on eugenics. Jeebus man, rein yourself in and get some perspective.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

Oh, I didn't mean to restrict that to +1 (or +X) weapons; that was just the simplest example. Any power you get from magic items that you wouldn't otherwise get according to the PHB makes it feel like you're ahead of the curve. Sure, at 4th level you get an ASI, but you knew you were going to get that. Everybody gets that. But if you also have a ring of fire resistance, somehow that feels like a superpower.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

I think equating racial ability score bonuses to eugenics is a bit hyperbolic.

 

[Maxperson]

I think equating racial ability score bonuses to eugenics is a bit hyperbolic.

More than a bit.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think equating racial ability score bonuses to eugenics is a bit hyperbolic.

But it's making me want to run a campaign in which elves get +2 Dex only because they kill off clumsy elflings.

 

[Maxperson]

But it's making me want to run a campaign in which elves get +2 Dex only because they kill off clumsy elflings.

I don't have a problem with a campaign like that, as long as everyone is on board prior to the start. That's one of those things I'd talk to my group about first in order to make sure that they were okay with it.

 

[Yaarel]

A turtle concept can be dexterous because of fine motor skills.

A rabbit concept can be strong because of speed and jump.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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...

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 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.

This shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the complaints at hand, to an almost insulting degree.

The issue isn't that people want every single stat identical between characters, heck, if the elf is a rogue the dwarf is a fighter and the tiefling is a warlock those bonuses are exactly what they want. The issue is is that if the elf is a rogue, and the tiefling is a rogue then the +2 CHA is likely NOT what they want. Because Dexterity is tied to every single aspect of being a rogue, and so the elf makes a better rogue.

A fact you very clearly seem to understand, because of the bit I bolded. The player has the option of picking a +2 Dex race... meaning that they are incentivized to not just play any race when playing a rogue, but a specific subset of races. It isn't that +2 =/= +2 it is that Rogues should equal Rogue, but if you don't pick a race with a dex bonus, you are a worse rogue at the key elements of being a rogue. And the only reason that is being kept around is because people want to put the various races/lineages/species in a box and say "only these classes are good for these races" out of a false sense that this somehow makes the world more realistic. It doesn't.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the complaints at hand, to an almost insulting degree.

The issue isn't that people want every single stat identical between characters, heck, if the elf is a rogue the dwarf is a fighter and the tiefling is a warlock those bonuses are exactly what they want. The issue is is that if the elf is a rogue, and the tiefling is a rogue then the +2 CHA is likely NOT what they want. Because Dexterity is tied to every single aspect of being a rogue, and so the elf makes a better rogue.

A fact you very clearly seem to understand, because of the bit I bolded. The player has the option of picking a +2 Dex race... meaning that they are incentivized to not just play any race when playing a rogue, but a specific subset of races. It isn't that +2 =/= +2 it is that Rogues should equal Rogue, but if you don't pick a race with a dex bonus, you are a worse rogue at the key elements of being a rogue. And the only reason that is being kept around is because people want to put the various races/lineages/species in a box and say "only these classes are good for these races" out of a false sense that this somehow makes the world more realistic. It doesn't.

Yeah a number of posts recently seem to display this same misunderstanding.