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

[LadyElect]

Are you arguing to get rid of rolling and standard array as well?

Should the rules just tell players to pick which stats they want so they can 'reflect the story they want to tell'?

If you want to tell a story write a book. This is a group game and it is important for there to be a rule set to create and set expectations of play. That can be houseruled if the group agrees with it but there should be a shared starting point.

I’m not understanding how these questions follow. For one, the standard array is really just a conveniently suggested subset of point buy. But rolling for stats still provides guidelines for character generation for those players who enjoy creating a character idea from stat generation rather than generating stats for a character idea.

I don’t believe anyone (in this topic at least) for removing racial ASIs has suggested that the idea of having a specific “story they want to tell” includes subverting the gameplay loop altogether. Racial ASIs are merely one part of character generation and the rule set. Removing or moving them to another step is just a suggestion that the shared starting point be modified. It doesn’t suggest that a player wants to skip the leveling process or avoid the other choices that go into character generation altogether.

And I think the question of where we draw the line for lore depictions reflected statistically is an interesting one. I understand the argument that Elves are depicted as a more dextrous race than many and thus deserve an ASI separate from any dexterity-based traits or abilities they gain to further elucidate that. But if Rogues are depicted as more dextrous than certain other classes then should the class also provide an ASI separate from the dexterity-based abilities and features it provides? And if the Athlete background carries a dextrous depiction then should it also provide an ASI alongside the dexterity-based proficiencies it provides?

Which parts of character generation should connect depiction and statistic and which shouldn’t? Why and how do we delineate between them?

 

[Scribe]

Without commenting on whether or not keeping both methods is a good idea, I do think you are exaggerating the importance of racial ASIs as an intrinsic component of the overall design philosophy. It’s no more important than Druids and metal armor, or Paladin alignment restriction. It’s just something we keep around because of tradition and flavor.

Now, that tradition and flavor may be valuable. Essential, even. (I don’t think so, but that’s me.). But it’s an appendage to the rules, not a core mechanic.

I dont think its an exaggeration at all, when a game, or fiction, or whatever, has a means to create ties across the various parts that make it (rules, lore, world building, whatever) those things should be leaned into.

The alternative is something I saw the other day that I have laughed about for a few days.

I can imagine an Eberron fan looking at this and thinking "Look at this, you cant say which is which!" while I say to myself "Look at this, you cant say which is which!" I'm sure you can imagine if I think its a positive or negative.

Removal of racial ASI, is a decrease, no matter how slight, in the amount of tradition and corresponding flavour, one has in a game or setting. I dont want that to decrease at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Yeah, one of the biggest issues I have with all of this is that they release Tasha's as a fun book of optional rules, and then almost immediately follow it up by saying they are using it going forward, which essentially says it isn't optional anymore. It felt disingenuous.

 

[abirdcall]

I’m not understanding how these questions follow. For one, the standard array is really just a conveniently suggested subset of point buy. But rolling for stats still provides guidelines for character generation for those players who enjoy creating a character idea from stat generation rather than generating stats for a character idea.

I don’t believe anyone (in this topic at least) for removing racial ASIs has suggested that the idea of having a specific “story they want to tell” includes subverting the gameplay loop altogether. Racial ASIs are merely one part of character generation and the rule set. Removing or moving them to another step is just a suggestion that the shared starting point be modified. It doesn’t suggest that a player wants to skip the leveling process or avoid the other choices that go into character generation altogether.

And I think the question of where we draw the line for lore depictions reflected statistically is an interesting one. I understand the argument that Elves are depicted as a more dextrous race than many and thus deserve an ASI separate from any dexterity-based traits or abilities they gain to further elucidate that. But if Rogues are depicted as more dextrous than certain other classes then should the class also provide an ASI separate from the dexterity-based abilities and features it provides? And if the Athlete background carries a dextrous depiction then should it also provide an ASI alongside the dexterity-based proficiencies it provides?

Which parts of character generation should connect depiction and statistic and which shouldn’t? Why and how do we delineate between them?

The argument was that floating ASIs should be used because that allows the player to 'tell the story of their character'.

Well, by that reasoning then all stats should just be decided by the player. Being constrained to what they rolled or the standard array is also putting limits on 'their story' just like racial ASIs do. Classes are also very constraining.

Lots of people argue for a classless and freeform system to 'tell their story'. Well, it's just not the game for them. They're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

The more D&D becomes a mishmash of a freeform archetype-less game and a class based archetype driven one the worse it is. It's the worst of both worlds.

 

[Scribe]

Yeah, one of the biggest issues I have with all of this is that they release Tasha's as a fun book of optional rules, and then almost immediately follow it up by saying they are using it going forward, which essentially says it isn't optional anymore. It felt disingenuous.

Discussing that probably gets us locked.

 

[Malmuria]

I will be house ruling it. I'll never play with Tasha's, nor have floating as part of the definition for my own setting. Its why I want a Planescape book so badly. I disagree with the direction of the game, and before they continue to make it worse (by my own definition, for me personally) I want the setting book that appeals to me, so I can walk away.

I'm arguing for racial ASI because I believe it adds something more than the simple stats. I feel that floating ASI actively makes for a worse cohesive whole of mechanics + setting + lore.

Others think floating helps them. Thats great, and I wish them well.

Off topic, but you've said that you've been waiting for a planescape book now in order to be done with this edition...and I don't totally get that? You are probably just setting yourself up for disappointment. If you think 5e design is getting worse, I don't feel a new PS book will make you very happy (will they rethink the way that alignment and the cosmos interact, for example?). Also I'm not sure the weirdness and eccentricity of PS can be reproduced by the 5e authors. As a PS fan, I kind of don't want there to be a 5e PS, with typical 5e art.

 

[LadyElect]

The argument was that floating ASIs should be used because that allows the player to 'tell the story of their character'.

Well, by that reasoning then all stats should just be decided by the player. Being constrained to what they rolled or the standard array is also putting limits on 'their story' just like racial ASIs do. Classes are also very constraining.

But this doesn’t logically follow from any of the arguments that actually seem to be given here so far. Arguing for some opening of customization doesn’t necessitate wanting entirely free form optimization. It seems clear that those arguing still want the rest (or most) of a 5e core or else they would argue for opening up the other elements as well, no? It seems this is being taken to an extreme ideal rather than as presented.

 

[abirdcall]

But this doesn’t logically follow from any of the arguments that actually seem to be given here so far. Arguing for some opening of customization doesn’t necessitate wanting entirely free form optimization. It seems clear that those arguing still want the rest (or most) of a 5e core or else they would argue for opening up the other elements as well, no? It seems this is being taken to an extreme ideal rather than as presented.

Which is why I asked a question.

They want one thing. I wanted to know if they wanted more things of the same nature.

They didn't answer the question and gave a snide remark instead.

That's not my fault.

If the argument really is that they need to 'tell their story' and racial ASI is a constraint against that it stands to reason that they would argue against other constraints. So I asked a question about that.

 

[Scribe]

Off topic, but you've said that you've been waiting for a planescape book now in order to be done with this edition...and I don't totally get that? You are probably just setting yourself up for disappointment. If you think 5e design is getting worse, I don't feel a new PS book will make you very happy (will they rethink the way that alignment and the cosmos interact, for example?). Also I'm not sure the weirdness and eccentricity of PS can be reproduced by the 5e authors. As a PS fan, I kind of don't want there to be a 5e PS, with typical 5e art.

Apparently they put Alignment back in Fizbans, while its not present in some of the other books. My hope, is that before they fully jump the shark, and remove Alignment, I get a Planescape book that actually leans into it.

Thats all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Off topic, but you've said that you've been waiting for a planescape book now in order to be done with this edition...and I don't totally get that? You are probably just setting yourself up for disappointment. If you think 5e design is getting worse, I don't feel a new PS book will make you very happy (will they rethink the way that alignment and the cosmos interact, for example?). Also I'm not sure the weirdness and eccentricity of PS can be reproduced by the 5e authors. As a PS fan, I kind of don't want there to be a 5e PS, with typical 5e art.

Exactly. That's why I found a third party doc that covered the Planescape rules I wanted (and used the art I like), so I won't be inevitably disappointed by what WotC releases. If they ever do.