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

[Argyle King]

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.

Do you think perhaps this might highlight a problem in D&D with some stats being more or less useful?

Obviously, something directly related to your primary role in the party will be desirable. However, I think a better game would be one in which the penalty for trying to dabble a bit in a different area (pillar of play or just having a less 1-dimensional character) isn't seen as so crippling and unoptimized that building a character seems more organic than working toward a MMO build.

I said something related to this earlier in the thread, but perhaps races could be viewed through the lens of play pillars as well as through the lens of what is good for particular classes and combat roles.

A strong race (or one with a damage-dealing ability) might be better for classes looking to focus on damage or for a player who wants to put more resources toward doing damage; but a different race with abilities geared toward exploration, social, or something else could give someone playing the same class a tradeoff: less direct damage and specialization in exchange for breadth of options and having an ability to pick up the slack in other areas when necessary. I think there's a way to do that and make both options attractive to a player looking to make a choice.

 

[Scribe]

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

This isn't a misunderstanding, it's both a misrepresentation and disagreement on how much it matters.

3e Tiefling Paladin. 'Nnnnnoooo you can't it has a -2 Cha!'

Well, actually no, you can if that is the character you wish to play.

Different race? Different experience, because this isn't real life, or a simulation.

It's a game where PC options are fundamentally different, as per how 5e was designed and delivered, for years.

MtoF was great, all I want is a Planescape setting book that follows the same design, and I'll walk away LOL.

 

[Jmarso]

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.

This is why rolled ability scores vs point buys or spreads make the game better, and DM's should be strict with it. Yes, the Elf gets +2 to DEX and the Tiefling gets +2 to CHA. But if the Elf player rolls a 12, his DEX is 14. The Tiefling player might roll an 18. Who's the better rogue then? Luck plays a role.

In my most recent playing experiences, latitude in character building (The 'everything goes' method) leads to players concentrating solely on mechanics and everything else about the character falls by the wayside.

I'm currently playing a cleric in a 2E Ravenloft campaign, and his highest ability score is a 13 WIS. The reason he's a cleric is because the DM called for straight 3d6 rolls, right down the stats, no mercy and no re-arranging, and that was as good as it got. Y'know what? I'm enjoying the hell out of this weak, uncharismatic, not-very-wise cleric.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This isn't a misunderstanding, it's both a misrepresentation

Well, I was trying to be generous and assume people were debating in good faith.

In any event, the point is that it's not about "Billy has a 17 so I should get one, too!" It's that when creating a character it's hard to give up the universal +1 to all of your class's most important rolls.

Speaking for myself, even if everybody else at the table had 14's in their primary attribute it wouldn't change anything. It's about my character, not my character relative to everybody else's.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This is why rolled ability scores vs point buys or spreads make the game better, and DM's should be strict with it. Yes, the Elf gets +2 to DEX and the Tiefling gets +2 to CHA. But if the Elf player rolls a 12, his DEX is 14. The Tiefling player might roll an 18. Who's the better rogue then? Luck plays a role.

I'm currently playing a cleric in a 2E Ravenloft campaign, and his highest ability score is a 13 WIS. The reason he's a cleric is because the DM called for straight 3d6 rolls, right down the stats, no mercy and no re-arranging, and that was as good as it got. Y'know what? I'm enjoying the hell out of it.

But even with that, before you've rolled the dice you know that...whatever you get...you either are or are not going to get +2 in your relevant attribute. So the incentive to optimize race/class combo is still there.

And if you are playing really strictly and rolling the dice in order, what's going to happen for a lot of people is that they'll see what their highest attribute is, then choose a class for which that's the primary attribute, and then choose a race that boosts it even further. (Not for all people all the time, but for a lot of people a lot of the time.). Same result, different workflow.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In any event, the point is that it's not about "Billy has a 17 so I should get one, too!" It's that when creating a character it's hard to give up the universal +1 to all of your class's most important rolls.

Is it though?

Speaking for myself, even if everybody else at the table had 14's in their primary attribute it wouldn't change anything. It's about my character, not my character relative to everybody else's.

I really don't get this. Certainly the numbers only mean something in comparison to something? But sure, let's give everyone +2 to dex... except elves and other traditional dex races; they get +4!

 

[Malmuria]

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.

I think the key is that some people like ASI to the degree that it incentivizes certain race/class combinations that feel like classic archetypes, either in reference to fantasy literature or just to dnd itself. In my experience, players, often guided by the dm (myself included) will end up following these incentives, thus creating elven archers, tiefling warlocks, halfling rogues, gnome wizards, and so on. This being the case, when a player decides to do something non-"optimized" (again the statistical difference is slight) it feels different because it's not so common. (and I guess some people interpret player options to be valid for the entire race in the implied setting, but that still baffles me).

This approach has a couple shortcomings. One, it's a quite roundabout way of reinforcing archetype. I can see the appeal of archetype, but if you want that game...just play OSE. Or 5 Torches Deep. Or, pick up the free basic rules for 5e and just play with those. The options included just in the PHB can easily produce race/class combinations that veer away from classic archetypes, and that's before even getting to the inevitable options bloat for any edition.* Two, people want 5e to be a more open-ended game. They want to look at a character from a comic, or videogame, or movie, and try to recreate that character using 5e rules. It's not even playing against type, because it's just a different set of archetypes/figures all together. And race ASI just gets in the way of that. Of course anything is possible, you can play a slightly unoptimized character etc etc, but I think for a lot of people it's a legacy of the game that hasn't really been relevant for a while.

*case in point

3e Tiefling Paladin. 'Nnnnnoooo you can't it has a -2 Cha!'

Well, actually no, you can if that is the character you wish to play.

Is a Tiefling Paladin against type? Because in 5e, Paladin synergies with Tiefling charisma bonus.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Is it though?

Are you seeing somebody argue something different? (I could see how something I wrote earlier could be misconstrued, when I talked about "relative" differences. But it's not really about keeping up the joneses, it's about the relative difference between the race/class combination you really want, and the one you would get if you optimized. Whether that's 20's or 12's doesn't matter.)

I really don't get this. Certainly the numbers only mean something in comparison to something? But sure, let's give everyone +2 to dex... except elves and other traditional dex races; they get +4!

That suggests to me you still aren't understanding it. If everybody got +2 dex, and elves got +4, there would still be a strong mechanical incentive when making a rogue or archer or monk to choose elf over other races.

 

[Scribe]

Is a Tiefling Paladin against type? Because in 5e, Paladin synergies with Tiefling charisma bonus

I loathe what 4e (extended into 5e) did to Tieflings, so I'm clearly biased.

(Yes, it's against type.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Are you seeing somebody argue something different?

I mean it is not that hard for some people.

That suggests to me you still aren't understanding it. If everybody got +2 dex, and elves got +4, there would still be a strong mechanical incentive when making a rogue or archer or monk to choose elf over other races.

I am confused why it would be easy for you to ignore an actual character that exist in the same party but not similarly ignore a hypothetical version of your own character that doesn't exist. Because to me the former seems far more reasonable point of comparison, as they actually exist.

And I don't ultimately get why it is a big deal if your monk would have been slightly better had they been an elf instead of a dwarf. This is not so tightly balanced game to begin with, and if we need to always optimise, we would be playing a monk in the first place, we would be playing a wizard or a cleric!