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

[Malmuria]

I mean it is not that hard for some people.


I am confused why 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!

Well we can agree that racial asi doesn’t make that big of a difference mathematically? That it’s not really that meaningful at the table?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well we can agree that racial asi doesn’t make that big of a difference mathematically? That it’s not really that meaningful at the table?

Yes, sure. And that is measurable, We know what they mathematically do, what is far more subjective of what they thematically do. I get that they don't thematically do much for some, they do for me though.

But +2 ASI produces one point difference in modifier, which is literally the smallest difference that actually does anything that the system allows. And personally I feel it is kinda sad that even this literally the smallest measurable difference in character competence seems to be unacceptable to so many. And I feel this way even outside the racial ASI debate. It just feels a lot of people seem to want the sort of homogeneity that I find off putting. Like every wizard must have the exact same intelligence at given level, every monk the same dexterity. Then why the hell even pretend that we are creating mechanically unique characters? Why even pretend that we can choose stats? Just give everyone the same score and be done with it!

 

[LadyElect]

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.

This is the central idea for me.

I’m happy for those that are arguing from a position of “limitation breeds creativity” or who rarely have friction at the table. But it’s my experience that games inherently attract optimizers. And so to provide the widest berth against providing them with more “viable” PC options you need to review the impact systems have on one another.

I think the two main roads you’d take if you agree with that are to either 1) avoid synergy altogether, which tends to lead toward race as an aesthetic only, or 2) attempt a balancing act of synergies across all combinations—perhaps something similar to the way Dungeon World gives each of the available races for a class a different unique ability (though they still limit options). The latter is far more difficult to implement, certainly more involved, and likely never to provide a truly even spread of playable combinations, but it’s an ideal I think some players strive for. Edit: And perhaps hated by just as many for being option overload.

Now none of that will stop a single Legolas in popular media from propelling the number of elf rangers to being the top % combo, but there’s no helping that.

 

[Malmuria]

Yes, sure. And that is measurable, We know what they mathematically do, what is far more subjective of what they thematically do. I get that they don't thematically do much for some, they do for me though.

But +2 ASI produces one point difference in modifier, which is literally the smallest difference that actually does anything that the system allows. And personally I feel it is kinda sad that even this literally the smallest measurable difference in character competence seems to be unacceptable to so many.

But that argument can go both ways--if it's such a small difference, then floating or removing the racial asi won't make such a big impact either, either in mechanical effectiveness or on theme of a race.

And I feel this way even outside the racial ASI debate. It just feels a lot of people seem to want the sort of homogeneity that I find off putting. Like every wizard must have the exact same intelligence at given level, every monk the same dexterity. Then why the hell even pretend that we are creating mechanically unique characters? Why even pretend that we can choose stats? Just give everyone the same score and be done with it!

Indeed, the game assumes that you'll have a +5 to rolls in your main ability score at level one (+3 stat modifier and +2 prof bonus), +7 at level 5, and +9 at level 9. For attack rolls, this sort of replicates the to-hit charts of early editions, but makes it seem like a player choice.

 

[Scribe]

Indeed, the game assumes that you'll have a +5 to rolls in your main ability score at level one (+3 stat modifier and +2 prof bonus), +7 at level 5, and +9 at level 9. For attack rolls, this sort of replicates the to-hit charts of early editions, but makes it seem like a player choice.

If this is truly a baked in assumption, then yes, I hope 6e removes either this assumption, or removes the illusion of player choice.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I have debated in good faith. But the truth is - Billy has a 17, I should have a 17 too. If you think it isn't then you are deceiving yourself.

Call it what you want:

• I want my character to represent my vision
• My table is min/max and TPK heavy, so we need every +1 there is
• I shouldn't be penalized for not maxing out my race/class combo

All of those are - Billy has a 17, I should have a 17 too.

But that isn't the worst part. A worse part is when the person completely ignores all the other things the race gives them. Ignores all of it, as if it isn't even part of the argument. Go ahead, give me a race/class combo out of the PHB and explain to me why it is bad or not "viable" (from a previous poster).

But wait, that still isn't the worst part. The worst part is when the side against ASIs masks it in some sort of pseudo-racism, as if any elven dexterity bonus or dwarven constitution bonus or half-orc strength bonus or human everything bonus reflects real world races. The language in the PHB needs to be fixed. The ASIs have nothing to do with any of it. So to bring it up as a reason is... I don't know what... but it's surreptitious in its way to promote a mechanic in a game you like. Which, by the way, is still about a mere +1.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

Why should anyone that has enjoyed 5e, used time to build campaigns in 5e, and has developed tables that prefer 5e have to play another game because they prefer ASIs and archetypes? I don't want this to come off as arrogant, but you do understand 5e started with archetypes and ASIs. Not until people complained about not having their +1 did they change their ruling by adding Tasha's rule. Go back and look at the PHB. It is full of archetypes. It's almost as if the game was designed that way. And guess what? They even talk about playing "against type."

So why should any group that bought the material, liked the material, and invested time in the material have to change? Shouldn't maybe, WotC come out with a new edition rather than try to expunge rules. (And I mean that in the broadest sense. Because most tables I know simply adopts new material - all of it. So a new rule or variant or optional rule is just that - a rule.)

 

[Malmuria]

Why should anyone that has enjoyed 5e, used time to build campaigns in 5e, and has developed tables that prefer 5e have to play another game because they prefer ASIs and archetypes? I don't want this to come off as arrogant, but you do understand 5e started with archetypes and ASIs. Not until people complained about not having their +1 did they change their ruling by adding Tasha's rule. Go back and look at the PHB. It is full of archetypes. It's almost as if the game was designed that way. And guess what? They even talk about playing "against type."

So why should any group that bought the material, liked the material, and invested time in the material have to change? Shouldn't maybe, WotC come out with a new edition rather than try to expunge rules. (And I mean that in the broadest sense. Because most tables I know simply adopts new material - all of it. So a new rule or variant or optional rule is just that - a rule.)

You don't have to do anything!
My argument has to do with game design and is as follows:
1) The 5e base game attempts to recreate classic fantasy archetypes (to "make dnd feel like dnd"), and does a so-so job of it. It relies on players figuring out that certain race-class combinations are every so slightly better than others, and then choosing those (vs earlier editions that just limited race-class combinations explicitly).
2) Once you add more options in terms of races and subclasses, you easily get a game that is quite removed from the aesthetic of classic fantasy. This is in fact already what happened with 3e and pathfinder 1e.

I would hypothesize that (2) combined with the change in play culture (to critical-role style OC play) reflect a game that is changing to be more open-ended, and that classic fantasy archetypes are not irrelevant, but only some of the archetypes that new players bring to the table.

That being said if you want more classic archetypes in your dnd, I might recommend that you play editions and versions of the game that zero-in on those archetypes and that playstyle. And if you do, you'll find a wealth of indie designers who are returning to those archetypes and rules and creating wonderful products for them. But to each their own.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I have debated in good faith. But the truth is - Billy has a 17, I should have a 17 too. If you think it isn't then you are deceiving yourself.

Wow. So, basically, you are rejecting the explanation people are offering, and saying you know the actual reason. That’s…kinda intense.

Call it what you want:

• I want my character to represent my vision
• My table is min/max and TPK heavy, so we need every +1 there is
• I shouldn't be penalized for not maxing out my race/class combo

All of those are - Billy has a 17, I should have a 17 too.

You left off the one you have been offered several times: given the choice between a character concept and +1 on all class roles rolls, it’s hard to say no to the +1.

Regardless of what Billy has.

But that isn't the worst part. A worse part is when the person completely ignores all the other things the race gives them. Ignores all of it, as if it isn't even part of the argument. Go ahead, give me a race/class combo out of the PHB and explain to me why it is bad or not "viable" (from a previous poster).

Well, I’d be happy to have the debate about whether those “other things” are actually anywhere near as impactful as the +1. (Spoiler alert: they aren’t). But it’s not relevant, because whether it’s true or false the belief that it’s true clearly has a huge impact on character decisions (source: D&DB data).

But wait, that still isn't the worst part. The worst part is when the side against ASIs masks it in some sort of pseudo-racism, as if any elven dexterity bonus or dwarven constitution bonus or half-orc strength bonus or human everything bonus reflects real world races. The language in the PHB needs to be fixed. The ASIs have nothing to do with any of it. So to bring it up as a reason is... I don't know what... but it's surreptitious in its way to promote a mechanic in a game you like. Which, by the way, is still about a mere +1.

Maybe that’s the ulterior motive of some people. And maybe other people are only defending racial ASIs because it’s their line in the sand against political correctness. I don’t know; I haven’t seen anybody say that. I take other poster’s statements and claims at face value.

 

[LadyElect]

Go ahead, give me a race/class combo out of the PHB and explain to me why it is bad or not "viable" (from a previous poster).

Just to “save my own skin” so to speak, since I assume this references my own post, I was merely co-opting a sort of min-max lingo there for effect and don’t actually believe there is any race-class combo that tangibly suffers enough to demand alteration to play. But to actually answer to this request, it would merely be any race-class combination whose ASI bonuses and ASI usages don’t align (ie: Elf Barbarian and Dwarf Wizard referenced upthread). And it’s because I actually agree with your opening from a game design perspective. I should have a 17 too.

But the 17 to me just represents an ideal starting balance. Any race-class combination should be able to approach level 1 with even footing potential (you can likely tell I tend to run standard array and point buy). So of course you can play any combination now and a game will run perfectly fine. Sometimes I even find it fun to roll random all around. But there’s no reason provided by the opposing arguments so far that I agree with enough to want the uneven footing of certain combinations to remain the default.

But that’s also just one piece of a much larger balancing act that will exist as long as the game does, regardless of edition.

A worse part is when the person completely ignores all the other things the race gives them. Ignores all of it, as if it isn't even part of the argument.

I also made some allusion to this upthread, but for me these things aren’t indeed part of my own argument. Or, at least, part of the argument against the ASIs. Flavorful racial abilities like Fey Ancestry and Trance are the sorts of things I think should instead be expanded upon in place of the ASIs. Because they don’t favor any particular class combination through direct synergy, they exist outside the argument of opposing built-in optimizability. Instead, I find they give reason for players to explore a wider variety of race-class combinations since they provide unique benefits to their PCs rather than innately complementary benefits.