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

[Bill Zebub]

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.

I have yet to see anybody in this thread describe a character without a 17 as "worthless", "not viable", or "ineffectual." But I'm fairly new so maybe it's an older discussion you're thinking of? Or from somewhere else?

Also, if you look at D&DB data, it's not the 17, it's the +3. Apparently for most people (including me) the goal is to start with a 16 in your primary stat. The only real advantage of a 17 is that at level 4 you can either take a split feat (one that gives +1) or if you have another odd attribute you can raise them both.

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.

I do find it odd that you apparently don't feel any pressure to optimize race/class combinations, and don't think the ASI really matters for anything other than flavor, but yet you seem to have very strong opinions about how other racial attributes benefit certain class combinations.

 

[Maxperson]

I do find it odd that you apparently don't feel any pressure to optimize race/class combinations, and don't think the ASI really matters for anything other than flavor, but yet you seem to have very strong opinions about how other racial attributes benefit certain class combinations.

Optimizing race/class combinations in 5e is like going out of your way to buy a car that goes 110(16 prime stat) MPH when the road speed limit is 100(14). I mean, I guess it's cool, but all you need is 100 to do well. Then racing to get the car to 120(18) and 130(20) MPH is wasted effort. In my opinion there are much better things to do with those bonuses.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Optimizing race/class combinations in 5e is like going out of your way to buy a car that goes 110(16 prime stat) MPH when the road speed limit is 100(14). I mean, I guess it's cool, but all you need is 100 to do well. Then racing to get the car to 120(18) and 130(20) MPH is wasted effort. In my opinion there are much better things to do with those bonuses.

I like racial ASIs too, but that's not really a solid metaphor. There's no speed limit. There's no down side to having a higher stat (no highway patrol), except perhaps an opportunity cost.

 

[jayoungr]

A have yet to see anybody in this thread describe a character without a 17 as "worthless", "not viable", or "ineffectual." But I'm fairly new so maybe it's an older discussion you're thinking of? Or from somewhere else?

When 5E first came out, I remember this board was full of a lot of people who were extremely upset and/or angry that it wasn't possible to create a character who had 20 in a primary stat at level 1. It might come from that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Rejecting what? This:

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.

It seems to me you are missing something big here.
First, as I just noted, for most people it seems to be the +3, not the 17.
Second, you're right, nobody absolutely "needs" the +3. That's hyperbole. But looking at the data, an overwhelming number of people take that combination.
Third...and this is the big thing you are missing...you don't need to be aware of or concerned about what other people are playing to know that +1 to your primary stat is a good thing.

If you find a +1 sword, is the only reason you swap out your regular sword because you see somebody else has one, or do you just know that +1 to your rolls is a good thing?

If you use an ASI to increase your primary stat, is it because you saw another character with a higher score, or because you just know that +1 to your rolls is a good thing?

For some reason you keep insisting that basic math is actually jealousy. What does this accomplish? Do you think it bolsters your argument to accuse other players of pettiness?

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.)

Ok, let's go down that rabbit hole. Please give me an example of "everything else a different race gets" that isn't +1 and we'll has it out. Let's say I really want to play an elf who fights with a greatsword, but instead I pick half-orc. Please tell me how the half-orc really isn't any better than the elf, because of all those great racial features.

Also, just out of curiosity, I'm wondering how much difference you think that +1 really makes. Just looking at normal combat, how much more effective do you think the half-orc is, compared to the elf, because of the +1?

As for "ending up with the same stats" sure you can get to a 20 by level 12, but if you started with a 16 then by level 12 you'd have a 20 and a feat. And (speaking for myself) what I really want are the feats, not the boring but effective ASIs, so that's delaying by four levels the part I really want. And (based on available data) most D&D campaigns end before level 10. Many of mine included.

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.

Yes, I agree that it is impacting poor design to a large degree. That's the whole point.

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.

Yes, it absolutely is, unless you play in an outlier campaign with very little or no combat. (And, if you do, your stance on this is more understandable.)

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.

Yeah I guess I'm just not going to touch that one. That way lies madness...and locked threads.

 

[Scribe]

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

I'm glad you like it. It may be what actually pushed me right out of 4e, the straw that broke my back.

My issues with Tiefling.

1. Wrong ASI. Charisma doesn't belong.
2. Made them a monolith.
3. Actually forced a 'rubber forehead'.
4. The new lore.

I can't think of a single positive feature in the 4e/5e version.

Thankfully Wizards seems to have understood there was dissatisfaction, and they fixed it all with SCAG Variant, which is what I use.

 

[Maxperson]

I like racial ASIs too, but that's not really a solid metaphor. There's no speed limit. There's no down side to having a higher stat (no highway patrol), except perhaps an opportunity cost.

Kinda. Metaphors don't have to be perfect to illustrate the point. The point is that having the higher bonus is unnecessary, but a lot of people have psyched themselves into thinking it is.

I'd rather have cool and fun feats than strive to get to 18 or 20 in my prime ability. The only reason my wizard hit 18 int during my last time playing was that I rolled a 16 and he got +1 for race. One of the feats that I wanted also gave +1 int, so he ended up with 18. That was at 4th level. At 12th level he still have an 18.

I think I said I reached 11th in a prior thread, but we hit 12th and all picked telepathic as a group, because it made sense for the campaign.

 

[LadyElect]

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.

This is fair and where we diverge I suppose. I like to have those flavorful and hyper-specific traits without necessarily needing them to be high use/impact. I’m happy enough to have the racial features provide more to out-of-combat role play and social interaction while leaving the combat features to class choice. And this is purely my personal response to each, but I find remembering a racial feature that I could be playing up with my PC to more often be an exciting reminder of RP potential whereas noticing I forgot a part of combat calculations after the fact more often frustrating or demoralizing. Perhaps it is the mathematics of the latter that causes me to feel that way.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm glad you like it. It may be what actually pushed me right out of 4e, the straw that broke my back.

My issues with Tiefling.

1. Wrong ASI. Charisma doesn't belong.
2. Made them a monolith.
3. Actually forced a 'rubber forehead'.
4. The new lore.

I don't know about 2-4, but #1 I disagree with. There's a reason why bad boys are popular. There's often just something about them that draws people. Charisma fits as much as anything else and more than some stats.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I like racial ASIs too, but that's not really a solid metaphor. There's no speed limit. There's no down side to having a higher stat (no highway patrol), except perhaps an opportunity cost.

Given that, all else being equal, I will always choose a faster car over a slower one, I kind of like the speed limit metaphor. It's true that I don't need the extra power, but it's awfully fun.