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

[Maxperson]

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

Yes it does. As you are completely wrong below.

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.

There are many ways to play a rogue and as the party face is one of them. A tiefling rogue likely wants to play a social game, so +2 dex is NOT what he wants.

In any case, +2 doesn't amount to much in 5e, which is why even playing a tortle rogue works out just fine. You may not be super hyper optimized with that little bit of extra dex oomph, but you don't need it at all to do very well. 5e is too easy in that regard.

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.

The baseline assumption should be 0. If you want to optimize for every little extra +, then pick a race that gives you that bonus. There are lots of races that give dex and multiple races that give charisma, and a bunch that give both. It's not hard to find one that will give you what you want.

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.

Prove that statement.

 

[Maxperson]

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

It's not even true, though. You can have a dex skill rogue, a charisma skill rogue and a intelligence skill rogue. Half the stats are useful, depending on your character concept. And there are tons of races to fill all of those stats without ever needing to go to floating bonuses.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It's not hard to give up at all. When most of the DCs you will encounter are 10-15, stat bonus + proficiency + expertise makes that +1 fairly irrelevant. The last campaign I played in my wizard never bothered to go above 18 int, because the +1 at 20 just wasn't worth it. Feats were more fun.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It's not the amount of the impact. It's that the bonus justifies racial dex abilities(the non-learned kind). If it's just learned dex abilities that elves get, then they are not more dexterous than any other race at all.

 

[Maxperson]

I am aware of the nature of hit points. I'm also aware that they are tied to constitution. So, if they are luck or skill or whatever else, then constitution probably covers that.

Con literally doesn't cover that, but hey, why go with what the game has said hit points represent since 1e when you can just declare the opposite.

So, it is fine for them to have learned skills. It is fine for those learned skills to mean that they are graceful and dexterous.

It doesn't mean the race is graceful or dexterous, though. Learned skills can't represent that.

Really? Eugenics is basically just selective breeding for humans for certain traits, combined with believing in superior genes.

Yes, really. Absolutely none of that was anywhere near anything I've said or argued. One guy here has been joking about it, but that's it. Step back and get some perspective, because you've lost it badly.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

First, let me state I am not arguing for me. I placed my solution out there, and it was to get rid of ASIs and let players pick their ability scores. This way they can create the character they envision. But that is too much freedom for most people here, as they want limitations, restrictions that force players to struggle for attribute bonuses... but they don't want the restriction of race. Too little, too much - they want what feels to them is the Goldilock's Zone.
And I agree with you, adding more and more races and subclasses does make it drift away from classic fantasy. But D&D was never classic fantasy. It was, and is, a mash-up of every type of fantasy and mythos out there. The fact that it leans a little more heavily on dwarves and elves means little. I mean, dwarves and elves walk into a forest and fight a shambling mound, that has eaten a tiefling, that lost her magic throwing stars, that enable her to travel to the Mechanus plane and hang out with her modrone friends, etc. In other words, since 2nd edition, it has never been classic fantasy.

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.

I agree. 100%.

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.

As I explained above, for me, it's not really about those classic archetypes. I like archetypes because they help define a setting. And, if you ask anyone here, I am all about setting, even to go so far as to wanting the rules of the game to reflect the setting. Which is why I understand Max's viewpoint.
But you are correct, to each their own.

 

[Aldarc]

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

(Yes, it's against type.)

I LOVE what 4e did to Tieflings. Carry on.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

Thanks for the honesty.

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.

I would add a starting balance that ignores all the other racial feats. And that is kind of my entire point. The +2 attribute bonus is so heavily focused on, that everything else seems to get lost, or at the least, out of focus. And your bolded line, a lot of players know and understand this, yet still have this need to start with a 17. It is interesting to me. I have tried to understand the dichotomy, but can't seem to put it into words. The people that need the 17, yet understand it really doesn't change or alter their playing experience will use words for their character like: "worthless," "not viable," and "ineffectual." It's an odd one.
(And for the record, I am sure I am that way about other things and don't see it.)

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.

Definitely. Well said.

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.

I wasn't trying to call any single person out. Truth is, I often try to not look at the names (it is difficult) when I respond. This way, I don't bring preconceived judgements, like, God that Max is so stubborn.
But I would like to respond to the bolded part here as I strongly disagree with it. I don't think there is enough features inside the game that can be thought of as useful (meaning used at least once a session) that doesn't help one class over another. People have tried to list racial feats, but they always seem to fall into two categories:
- Cool sounding and definitely flavorful, but they might get used once every few sessions. This means they get lost, players forget about them, they don't add to the racial motif and, therefore, don't impart that motif onto the story.
or
- They are cool and definitely help one class over another.

 

[ad_hoc]

I don't see absence of a penalty as equivalent to having advantage -especially with the binary nature of advantage/disadvantage in 5E.

Still...

If D&D used range modifiers, I would go that route by reducing range penalties by a step.

Maybe that could be done by saying Elves get something like "...add 10ft to the normal range for a ranged weapon and 5ft to the long range for a ranged weapon."

Alternatively, the 4th Edition Elf Power was a once per encounter reroll of a ranged attack. A way to do something similar in 5E might be "...you may choose to gain advantage on a ranged attack a number of times per day equal to your proficiency bonus; all uses recharge after a long rest."

This is much worse than racial ASIs as it is far narrower.

 

[Scott Christian]

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

Rejecting what? This:

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.

This is exactly what I said. Just because you say I don't need to be like Billy, but I just want that 17 for my own reasons; this doesn't mean you don't need the 17 for all races. It's the same exact thing as saying I want it because everyone else has it. You want the 17. If you never saw a 17 at first level, you wouldn't absolutely need it.
And the bolded part disregards everything else a different race that doesn't get that +1 at first level brings. (Never even mind the fact that you can end up with the same stats by level 8 or 12 anyway.)

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).

I agree. Which means this: ASIs help create a setting, feel, archetypes, tropes, and mood in the game that is incredibly impactful. So when people argue that removing them greatly impacts the game, it should be considered thoughtfully. And when people insist they be removed (say Tasha's rule), they should understand it is impacting the game's original 5e design to a large degree.
That is, of course, if you really believe that the +1 is more impactful than all the other racial feats. Which from your comment above, it is.

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.

I wasn't calling any specific person out. I was just stating it is an argument I have seen several times, and it seems disingenuous at the very least, hurtful at its worst.