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

[Scribe]

If you are arguing that it is racial ASI does not incentivize particular race-class combinations, then the design purpose of racial ASI decreases even further.

It clearly does incentivize particular race-class combinations, its part of what allows for 'against type'.

To me.

 

[Scribe]

I thought the issue is that people would like to both play and see other people play non-standard race combinations more frequently, but the reason this doesn't happen is because they value the ASI more than the diversity. But they would like to be able to do both.

I dont have a particular desire to see people play non-standard combinations more frequently. I dont care either way really, but I certainly dont favour 'oh what a unique combination' over playing archetypes. I like archetypes.

“You don’t need a +3”
"Yeah, but I want it more than I want to play a gnome."
"Are you saying a gnome fighter with 15 strength isn't viable?"
"No, 15 is perfectly viable, but I want my fighter to have 16 strength more than I want it to be a gnome"
"Do you think 16 strength is optimal?"
"I know a +1 on my attack rolls and damage does more for fighting that a +2 Int plus the other gnome abilities"
"Is this just because Billy has a 16 in his primary attribute?"
"No, it's because +3 is obviously better than +2"
"Are you sure you're not hiding some kind of deep-seated insecurity complex that manifests as a need to have a 16?"
"Yup, pretty sure."

I certainly hope that isnt in reference to me. The conversation would end at "Yeah, but I want it more than I want to play a gnome." because thats the reality.

In other words, it feels like the people in favor of racial ASIs keep trying to define these terms in order to persuade the floating ASI people that they don't need the 16, that a 15 is still viable, etc. etc. etc. But it's not about the absolute mechanical value of a 15 or a 16 or a 17, it's about the perceived relative value of the +1 modifier, compared to the benefits of choosing some race with a non-primary ASI.

Not at all. I'm not trying to persuade you or anyone else that prefers Tasha's of anything. My position can be summed up easily.

1. This is how 5e was designed. All the way from release, to MToF, every new race was provided under a specific design paradigm.
2. There was nothing wrong with that paradigm. It did not prevent race/class combinations as prior editions did. Feel free to roll that Orc Wizard.
3. There is nothing mechanically that prevents 'off type' combinations.
4. Racial ASI is a tool to reinforce archetypes. I like archhetypes.
5. Both approaches can coexist, and SHOULD coexist.

Thats it.

 

[Malmuria]

I dont have a particular desire to see people play non-standard combinations more frequently. I dont care either way really, but I certainly dont favour 'oh what a unique combination' over playing archetypes. I like archetypes.



I certainly hope that isnt in reference to me. The conversation would end at "Yeah, but I want it more than I want to play a gnome." because thats the reality.



Not at all. I'm not trying to persuade you or anyone else that prefers Tasha's of anything. My position can be summed up easily.

1. This is how 5e was designed. All the way from release, to MToF, every new race was provided under a specific design paradigm.
2. There was nothing wrong with that paradigm. It did not prevent race/class combinations as prior editions did. Feel free to roll that Orc Wizard.
3. There is nothing mechanically that prevents 'off type' combinations.
4. Racial ASI is a tool to reinforce archetypes. I like archhetypes.
5. Both approaches can coexist, and SHOULD coexist.

Thats it.

That's perfectly sensible. It would be fascinating to see whether a group of entirely new players actually pick up on these archetypes in the game or not. Something like elven archer is fairly well-known, but what about, say, gnome wizard? And beyond the classic fantasy races, I think the archetypes break down. Dragonborn paladins, I guess, but I have no idea where that comes from. Genasi? Lizardfolk? Kenku? I honestly wouldn't know where to start with most of those.

I just got my nephew the Young Adventure's Guides, and they are really interesting example of articulating archetype without any mechanics.

 

[Scribe]

Dragonborn paladins, I guess, but I have no idea where that comes from. Genasi? Lizardfolk? Kenku? I honestly wouldn't know where to start with most of those.

I'd argue that those dont really have any, or (more likely) I dont have the depth of experience with the sources that would inform what those archetypes are.

Dragonborn/Lizardfolk would be Warrior or Rogue types to me, but are not tightly cast imo.
Genasi, again outside something like Avatar, are not a common enough trope to me.
Kenku...again, rogue like? I dont know. lol

It would be fascinating to see whether a group of entirely new players actually pick up on these archetypes in the game or not

Would depend on age and past exposure I guess.

And beyond the classic fantasy races,

Thats kind of the thing.

Elf, Halfling, Dwarf, Orc, Goblin, its not just Class, in fact it's not really class that we have all been focusing on. Its more about what defines these various options, before you even get to Class selection. /shrug

 

[Older Beholder]

From the original post:

But you know what? All those who argued that getting rid of ASI were right. It allows you to make the character you want to make and that's always a good thing. You win. I am a reformed man.

Some people just want stats to reflect the story they want to tell,

- a Fire Genasi that didn‘t have the intelligence to train as a wizard and found enlightenment wandering the desert as a hermit before becoming an Arcana cleric.

- a Halfling that fell into a cauldron of mixing strength potion as a baby and is super strong as a result.

etc…

 

[Bill Zebub]

I certainly hope that isnt in reference to me.

No, not you. And not any single person, either. More an amalgam of some of the arguments.

 

[Scribe]

From the original post:



Some people just want stats to reflect the story they want to tell,

- a Fire Genasi that didn‘t have the intelligence to train as a wizard and found enlightenment wandering the desert as a hermit before becoming an Arcana cleric.

- a Halfling that fell into a cauldron of mixing strength potion as a baby and is super strong as a result.

etc…

And thats fine. Thats why an optional Tasha's existed.

 

[Malmuria]

Elf, Halfling, Dwarf, Orc, Goblin, its not just Class, in fact it's not really class that we have all been focusing on. Its more about what defines these various options, before you even get to Class selection. /shrug

Well I would argue that in earlier editions race and class worked together to create the archetype (most extensively in basic, where race is class). OD&D and Basic didn't even have any ability score modifications.

I think it's possible to have a design that separates the two thematically, but the work there is being done by special abilities and racial feats (e.g. the earlier discussion of elven trance and similar abilities). That would be my preference actually, instead of relying on race-class synergy as has been the design intent in 5e (and 3e).

 

[Scribe]

Well I would argue that in earlier editions race and class worked together to create the archetype (most extensively in basic, where race is class). OD&D and Basic didn't even have any ability score modifications.

I think it's possible to have a design that separates the two thematically, but the work there is being done by special abilities and racial feats (e.g. the earlier discussion of elven trance and similar abilities). That would be my preference actually, instead of relying on race-class synergy as has been the design intent in 5e (and 3e).

I believe that there are flaws in how certain Abilities are balanced. My perfect system would be more granular, offer some more flexibility, but would add additional layers to the race selection, and systems while you level.

I doubt Wizards will ever go back to that. I still dont get why Feats are just an optional add on.

 

[Maxperson]

What I further don't get is that it seems like that sort of thinking is the exact design point of having a racial ASI. The player is meant to look at the gnome description and mechanics and realize that gnomes are better for wizards and dwarves are better for fighters, thus leading either to a) characters who embody classic dnd archetypes or b) characters that are conspicuously against type. So it's a bit of a bait-and-switch to say 'we need racial ASI so that the game has clear archetypes' and then to call players who go ahead and bite on that small incentive 'powergamers.'

Only one person has gone overboard and made that claim.