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

[Ixal]

Where 3e messed up was not in the racial bonuses, but in keeping the racial penalties. Those penalties created more of a class pigeonhole than bonuses ever did. Especially in a system where the bonuses and improvements were baked into the math.

No, they did not mess up. At least not when you are interested to play characters instead a bag of stats.

 

[Maxperson]

The game is set by default, the DM has the choice to allow some options or not in his campaign. If, as a DM, I don't want to use options like grids or floating ASIs, they are not available in that game.

Yep. I don't allow point buy or array in my game. You roll your stats with the method I have created.

 

[Maxperson]

No, they did not mess up. At least not when you are interested to play characters instead a bag of stats.

I've always played characters and not bags of stats. A penalty in 3e to your prime stat made it incredibly hard to play that character. The math was unforgiving.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The context of the discussion is racial asi vs floating asi. If you argue that racial asi is a helpful way of differentiating races and accentuating their features, then you have to concede that floating asi can be used to accentuate other aspects of the character such as background.

No. I don't think that they do. Racial ASI can be a good way of illustrating some of the base capabilities of a race, but floating ASI serve no useful purpose.
They are better removed and replaced with more points and an extension of the point-buy table, higher standard array etc.

DMs have the choice for what? What does the DM have to do with my characters ability scores?

DMs get to choose the method that you use to generate them.

 

[Ixal]

I've always played characters and not bags of stats. A penalty in 3e to your prime stat made it incredibly hard to play that character. The math was unforgiving.

No it did not make it hard to play a character. It made it hard to play an optimized character. But there is no problem in any edition in playing a character with a 14 in its prime stat.

 

[Yaarel]

Mostly a good post, but there's no contradiction with 3e or 5e racial ability bonuses and the races themselves.

Where 3e messed up was not in the racial bonuses, but in keeping the racial penalties. Those penalties created more of a class pigeonhole than bonuses ever did. Especially in a system where the bonuses and improvements were baked into the math.

5e did not do that. There is neither contradiction, nor any sort of pigeonholing going on. Anyone who feels otherwise is psyching themselves into believing something that the math doesn't bear out.

With a +2 5e is easy. With +3 it's very easy. With +4 it's incredibly easy. And with +5 it's a virtual cakewalk. Unless the DM increases the difficulty anyway.

In 5e, where the human average is +1, a +0 is an ability score "penalty", narratively.

Mechanically, within the context of 5e design of bounded accuracy, each bonus increase becomes exponentially more powerful. In many contexts, including proficiency bonus and typically a magic bonus, a +5 ability bonus is virtually an autowin, followed up by a routine advantage die, just in case.

The head start by a race ability score improvement is an extreme incentive for a race to pick only certain classes in 5e. The absence of one is a punishment, both narratively being less than a human and mechanically losing out on a feat in order to catch up mathematically.

Meanwhile, the ability score improvement itself as a mechanic is a blunt instrument at best, and often handicap the playability of the tropes of a race.

For many reasons, the race ability score improvement is a bad gaming design. It fails to accomplish what it intends to do, namely mechanically quantify the tropes of a race. Also it causes more serious problems ethically because of its reallife racist origins, that are at best old fashioned, and at worst objectionable in todays sensibilities.

 

[Bill Zebub]

For one, the standard array is really just a conveniently suggested subset of point buy.

I was just thinking about how the two ASI options (racial and floating) mirror this: floating ASIs are the general approach, like Point Buy, and racial ASIs are the recommended specific case, like Standard Array.

Which leaves me with a question for @Scribe (and others): would it be sufficient if the rules suggested or recommended where to put ASIs, perhaps akin to the quick builds offered in the class chapter, or in your opinion must it be presented as two different rules options, sort of like the attribute generation rules?

The difference, I think, is that in one case it’s up to each player how they want to do it, and in the other case it’s more likely the DM will dictate the method.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Which leaves me with a question for @Scribe (and others): would it be sufficient if the rules suggested or recommended where to put ASIs, perhaps akin to the quick builds offered in the class chapter, or in your opinion must it be presented as two different rules options, sort of like the attribute generation rules?

The latter.

The difference, I think, is that in one case it’s up to each player how they want to do it, and in the other case it’s more likely the DM will dictate the method.

Yes. And this is the sort of thing that should be a campaign level decision, not a player level decision.

 

[Yaarel]

For the record, I have zero interest in "playing against type". I consider it a racist way of thinking. It is the application of a racist stereotype, reinforced by "youre not like the rest of your race".

Heh, for a game to mechanically enforce such an appalling worldview, is appalling.

I get it that earlier generations did this to subvert reallife racism. But today we can minimize and eliminate racist tropes, rather than merely subvert them.

I prefer each race includes diverse individuals within the community of a race. Different individuals do different things excellently.

 

[Scribe]

Which leaves me with a question for @Scribe (and others): would it be sufficient if the rules suggested or recommended where to put ASIs, perhaps akin to the quick builds offered in the class chapter, or in your opinion must it be presented as two different rules options, sort of like the attribute generation rules?

It certainly would be better than nothing, the amorphous 'undefined' that is Floating/Tasha's.