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

[Maxperson]

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.

As I said upthread, if I were going to try and play a genasi against type, I'd go arcane caster and specialize in the opposite element. That would make the same element the archetypical one. For lizard men I'd go back to 1e where the ones you encountered were usually fighters with some clerics(shaman) for the archetypes. Something different would be against type. Kenku are just odd.

 

[Garthanos]

Reality: that "in proportion" is dependent on their absolute size. If you make them the size of a housecat, that proportion will break down. It is a matter of physics and muscles made up of cells. Strength goes like the square of linear size (the cross-sectional area of the muscle), while weight goes like the cube of linear size. The square-cube law gets you every time!

There seem other factors involved than just the Square Cube Law. Lets examine the impact of that square cube (it affects movement rates and relative strength yup) . However lets examine that the tarantula starts out 20cm and 50grams? We enlarge it to 10x that or 200cm leg span and 50kg. So relative strength and movement would go down as the linear of the increase ie 1/10th. 1/10 x 250... aka still 25x relative strength. OK see that does not sound right did I mess something up?


I picked a large species of spider and maybe it already had less relative strength but it is frequently the spider pattern for scary.

edit: Confirming I picked a relatively weak spider to enlarge and used the relative strength of a much smaller spider too sigh

edit: Awesome the research on spider strength is crap with some scientists saying that spiders can lift an average of 8 times their own weight, some say its 100 times and some say it is up to 170 times their own weight with variation further by species..... well if that isnt useless.

And the strength of the strongest spider species I could quickly find info on (subject to the terrible research limits), Darwins Bark Spider enlarged to about a leg span like a humans height seems about well normal for human sized muscles LOL well that is less fun than spiderman stories lets ignore that for the myths and fantasy and superheroes.

 

[Maxperson]

There seem other factors involved than just the Square Cube Law. Lets examine the impact of that square cube (it affects movement rates and relative strength yup) . However lets examine that the tarantula starts out 20cm and 50grams? We enlarge it to 10x that or 200cm leg span and 50kg. So relative strength and movement would go down as the linear of the increase ie 1/10th. 1/10 x 250... aka still 25x relative strength. OK see that does not sound right did I mess something up?


I picked a large species of spider and maybe it already had less relative strength but it is frequently the spider pattern for scary.

"Thank goodness for the Square Cube Law. The Tarrasque heading for the city doesn't exist, so we're safe!" ~ A soon to be deceased PC shortly before the fourth age ended.

 

[Garthanos]

"Thank goodness for the Square Cube Law. The Tarrasque heading for the city doesn't exist, so we're safe!" ~ A soon to be deceased PC shortly before the fourth age ended.

Them dragons will never fly either of course.

I blame Umbran

 

[Chaosmancer]

I use it as it is commonly used. You'll need to prove your bold claim there. Since I don't believe that you can't prove it, I'll ask why you have the opinion that +5 must be the baseline, and +4 must not be?

So you mean as in goodly, saintly, kindly ect? No, I don't believe that the stats have anything to do with a good character. So, what do you mean by "how it is commonly used" because the word "good" is commonly used in about a dozen contexts, especially in gaming circles, especially when you get to different paradigms. Like I said, I'm using thinking in terms of meeting the expected baseline.

Since you don't believe I can't prove it (likely because I have done so multiple times) I'll make this quick, especially since it is 1 AM and I am too tired.

First reason I expect it is the baseline: Because of the basic math of the game. The standard array of stats has the highest stat as a 15. Baseline human is +1 in all stats, so their highest stat will be a 16. Proficiency bonus is a +2, meaning that the simplest and easiest character to make (A Human X with their prime stat as their highest) will have a 16 in their main stat.

Second reason is the fairly well accepted math that has shown that a +5 at levels 1 thru 3 gives a 65% success rate against average ACs, DCs, ect, which then trails off and is bumped at various levels as we expect to get stat increases and proficiency increases. I've seen this mentioned in multiple places.

Going back to the first reason, why would I expect that a character with a class would put their highest stat in their prime stat? Because the game tells you to. In the quick builds for every class it lists a primary stat which should be your highest.

So, yes, a 16 in your prime stat is the expected baseline. You would have to either not put your highest stat in your prime, or actively choose a race that does not increase your prime stat to avoid it. Something the game subtly points to as not encouraged, not only from the quick builds, but also in the table that lists all of the ASIs for the various races, making them easy to reference, right in the same place that they demonstrate matching race and class to get your prime stats to 16 or 17.

The bold explains it. It's just their personal feeling.

So your explanation for why they felt someway is because they felt someway... In your mind are feelings utterly arbitrary and indicative of nothing? Because I don't understand how saying that their feelings are their feelings in anyway answers the question of why.

You expect me to believe that? Nothing ever failed it's save against your spells at +4, but would have failed enough to make it worthwhile at +5? That +1 difference meant the difference between nothing failing to save and the spell is suddenly worthwhile?

No, I expect you to fight me tooth and nail and decry everything I say as a lie, a twisting of the truth or ignorance. But I hope you might actually listen to what I am saying.

Would a +1 have made all the difference? Well, the game was 5 years ago and I didn't really make a log of every single roll ever made, so I can't say that with scientific accuracy. However, those two characters who had less than 16 in their primary attributes are the only two clerics and really the only two spellcasters I have seen in 9 years of this game to have this problem. Even other casters who missed quite often never felt so frustrating. To either me, or the other player.

That +1 to hit and +1 to DCs and +1 spells prepared or known does make a difference. You can scoff at me all you want about how that can't possibly be true, and yet, two different characters with the exact same issue, years and tables apart, under two different DMs points to there being something to it.

All because he started with a 14 instead of a 16? I'm not going to believe that even if a player somehow felt that he was weaker do the lack of +1, magic items providing +1 wouldn't fix it.

There weren't +1 items for cleric spell DCs at the time. I did end up with him having about 5 magic items to everyone elses two or three, and he still felt weaker than all of those other characters.

It sounds very much like a psychological issue to me. I'm not saying or implying that you guys are insane, so don't go into left field on me again. I'm just saying that if a PC is lacking +1 and you provide that +1 via magic items, the issue is objectively gone. If the player still feels like he's weaker, that perception is just in his head and not actually true. The same with the misperception that the lack of +1 causes everything make it's save against your spells, but having that +1 means that the spell is now useful.

You are assuming the items were giving him a +1 to spells, they weren't.

And, maybe it is psychological more than mathematical, but two different people, years apart, at different tables with different DMs reporting the same psychological effect? Seems a stretch, unless there is something too it. And, considering that psychological effects are still real, at least real enough to move multi-million dollar enterprises, I wouldn't just dismiss them as something people should "get over" either.

I've never said or implied that the baseline bonus for a PC's main stat is 0. This is not a reasonable assumption to make from what I have been arguing here.

Third times the charm.

Then what did you mean by saying "The baseline assumption should be 0." If you would explain yourself, this whole process could go a lot faster than me repeatedly asking you to answer the same question over and over again.

I've been talking about the racial averages and racial stat bonuses. I've not once talked about or implied that PCs are average or that the baseline should be 0. That's a complete fabrication on your part.

Those are literally your words, from this post right here.

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.

Please Max, stop accusing me of fabricating things I can literally quote you saying. It is insulting.

You've made the claim yes. Demonstrated it? No. Raising the racial dex average of a race that is more dexterous by giving it +2 does change the flavor and add more realism.

No, it doesn't change the flavor of them at all. No, it is not more realistic to lock them in to these bonuses.

Sure it does. The rules that limit PCs don't limit NPCs. This is why NPC wizards and such have abilities that PC wizards don't and vice versa. They've learned different things.

And can PCs learn the abilities of NPCs? No. Therefore just because it is a leanred ability doesn't mean everyone is capable of learning those abilities. Therefore, my previous answer stands. Some people are incapable of learning things that others can learn to do.

Now you're implying that Cirque du Solei gymnasts are born to Cirque du Solei gymnasts and nobody else can learn it. The fact is, anyone from any part of the world who is born with a slender body type can learn how to do it. So while elves might all be slender and able to learn X ability, any human, orc, hobgoblin or triton with the same body type could also learn it.

"With a slender body type" ie someone without a slender body type, who is born broader of shoulder or with a metabolism that leaves them husky can't learn it.

So, exactly what I said. Yes, people can learn to be gymnasts and acrobats, but some people are simply not capable of the amount of flexibility they are required to learn.

Someone with the ability helps you learn how to use your mind to project your thoughts. With practice and hard work, you eventually become able to do so and gain that feat.

Sorry, but the feat doesn't require I get a teacher. And who says it can be learned at all. A lot of psychic stories involve it being something you are born with and must learn to use. A learned skill that is rooted in how you are born. Again.

And do you really think that only Tabaxi have claws? Any intelligent race with claws should be able to learn to retract them. Just like any race with scales should be able to take the ability to have tougher scales.

Actually I was referring the Dragon Hide feat, that says that the dragonborn who take it gain sharp retractable claws and tougher scales. Tell me, how did they learn to grow tougher scales than they were born with? What book did they study to pull that off? What did they learn to change their non-retractable claws into retractable ones, because that is a biological feature, you literally have to be born with that ability, that's why cats are one of the few species capable of retracting their claws, and most species aren't. It requires special muscles and a space to retract the claws into.

And we see from the game that anyone who wants to can learn to be lucky. They weren't lucky from levels 1-3 and now at level 4 they are!

Right, so how do you learn to be lucky? You are 100% confident that it is a learned skill, how do you learn it?

There's a reason why this is at the beginning of the DMG,

"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

The designers understand that the rules when applied as written to every situation will break down in some of them, like your tiny spider example. They expect that the DM will recognize absurd situations like that and just say no. The DM should make a ruling over the rule, like the game's mantra says.

Great, so even if the rules say Elves don't get a +2 to dex, and you say that means the rules are saying elves aren't graceful, you can recongize that is absurd and say that actually elves are graceful even without the +2 Dex.

Rulings not rules Max, just like the game's mantra.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Where is this baseline expectation established by WotC?

By the design of the game. I've shown this multiple times.

Easiest and simplest build in the game, Baseline human, of any class, standard array, your highest stat is a 16.

The game tells you you should always put your highest stat as your prime attribute. The only way to not start with a 16 or 17 as your highest stat is to actively take a race that does not benefit your prime stat, something the designers clearly did not expect the baseline to be.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I mean you are probably right, its probably just a circular topic but this in particular continues to stick.

Optimal is not the question. That is easy. Optimal will be 'highest number possible till cap', because balance in the game is not tightly tuned, and its up to the DM to make other stats outside of the primary, useful, or punishing tanking a score.

The question remains if its viable to NOT max out, so either:

1. WotC has a baked in expectation of maxing out primary stat that I've not seen. Rendering choice an illusion.
2. WotC does not require maxed out primary stat, and we actually have choice.

An expected baseline does not translate into basic competency. These are two different concepts.

The baseline is just the expected starting point. You can be a little below that and be "fine", you just are under the expected baseline. You can be a little above it and be "fine", same thing. Trying to twist what I'm saying into me trying to claim that a 14 in your prime stat is utterly unplayable is false. That is not what I am saying.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And here you go, I don't need all the rest of the post to show that it is absolutely all about powergaming. What do you care what a 1st level generic cleric is ? Will there be another cleric in the group ? Probably not. And even if there is one, your wisdom score is not tattooed on the forehead of your tiefling cleric. So it's all about comparing your character to others.

So, I literally made a massive multi-paragraph post, and you think I'm lying?

What do I care if my character doesn't meet the expected baseline of the game? I care because I'd like to meet it. It isn't exactly difficult to realize that if I played a human instead of a tiefling I could get a 16 in my wisdom. I am capable of basic math.

And, as @Bill Zebub pointed out, if this truly was "all about powergaming" then it wouldn't bother me, I'd just play the Variant human for that incredbily powerful feat and get my 16 wisdom. So if it is all about powergaming what am I trying to gain by having a 16 Wis Tiefling cleric who gets a cleric cantrip and fire resistance instead of taking the human who also gets a 16 wisdom, but then gets an extra skill proficiency and the War Caster feat which makes me losing concentration on my spells nearly impossible and gives me a reaction spell. Or maybe I'd take magic initiate and grab Shillelagh or Primal Savagery for comboing melee cantrips with my increases from my class.

Why is the human perfectly acceptable play, but tielfing is a dirty powergamer infecting the game?

In our campaigns, no-one has access to the stats of any other character. There is no comparison, and with a d20 range, there is no way a measly +1 will statistically make a difference over even several evenings of play.

And this is meaningless to the problem, because the problem isn't that my character has a lower wisdom than the other cleric in the party, it is that my character has a lower wisdom than the theoritical other version of my own character whom I picked a better race for.

I do still get access to my own stats right?

Again, I don't care if people powergame at their tables or not, and it's not because they powergame that they don't enjoy other aspects of the game as well. But still that envy, that jealousy, that comparison to standards and other characters is creating tension, in particular about this issue of racial ASIs and all the other troubles that come with the notion of race (as compared to ethnicity).

Yeah, and this has nothing to do with powergaming. Nothing. No powergaming is going on. And the fact you are waving that banner declaring that all we care about is powergaming is actively making the conversation harder, because we clearly aren't talking about that.

Unless you think every human with the standard array is a powergamer, or every elf who plays a rogue, wizard, ranger, monk or dex-based fighter is a powergamer. In which case, your definition is too broad to be useful.

 

[clearstream]

To me the differences between subraces seem problematic as that is far more directly analogous to human ethnicities. But I don't find elves tending to be more agile or dwarves tending to be more tough any more problematic than both tending to be better at seeing in the dark than humans. These are simply things that define these species and a part of what sets them apart from humans.


Then why not apply the same with classes? Why not just put all rules in the one same pool and let the players choose what they want. Have some fluff about how clerics usually cast healing spells and fighters usually use better weapons etc. The point is that if in a splat based game splats do not mechanically define and limit things than there is no point having a splat based game.


To me the main purpose of RPG rules is to have mechanical representation of the fiction. It is not about 'being best' or 'winning'. I want the rules to recognise that half-orcs being big and physically powerful and halflings being really, really small actually is something more than just visuals.

That does not really answer my question. If the concern is recognising races with more than just visuals, and part of that for you must be in ASIs, why are you unconcerned with fighters being generally stronger than wizards? Why do you apparently repudiate most rogues being more dexterous than most clerics?

If rogues are generally more dexterous than clerics, and clerics wiser than wizards, etc, then choosing ASIs based on the class our character is practiced in is justified on grounds other than being best or winning. We want the rules to recognise wizards as academically excellent, bards as natural entertainers, and rogues as light on their feet.

Your might point out that wizards and bards and rogues have other features than ASIs. They do, and so can (and do) races. That is the direction of contemporary D&D race design. Not mired in some past where the most important thing about a race - the thing that is "more than just visuals" is, apparently, a few numbers.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But again, one of the arguments in favor or racial ASI is that it provides an incentive for particular race-class combinations that are seen as archetypal to fantasy, especially in the context of dnd. Some players may consider that incentive necessary for a "viable" character, others may consider it optimal but not necessary, but either way it's an incentive. As I've tried to demonstrate, early editions reinforced these archetypes not primarily (or at all) through ability score modifications but through outright race-class restrictions.

My view is that it is not really about the classes, at least not directly.

My position stems from these two principles 1) I want ability scores to matter and actually represent things that are real in the fiction 2) I want fantasy species to be different from each other.

So I want elves to be more agile than other species and I want things that are agile to have a better dex score. Now if from this it follows that such species is more suited for certain classes, then so be it.

However, ultimately I would prefer if classes were not so SAD, and there wouldn't be just one obvious correct way to build them. But a halfling fighter choosing different weapons, fighting specialisations, feats and probably armours too than a goliath one would is the thing working as I want it to. They will both still be decent at being fighters, but they will feel and play somewhat differently.

I fully get that people don't like the current system. It has issues. I just would prefer to fix it rather than jettison the whole thing. Granted, that is much harder.