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

[le Redoutable]

A game for those who love dice rolling:

First you use d6T.
A d6T use values instead of 1,2,3,4,5,6.
3,3,3,4,5,6

So, the goal is to reach 100 by rolling d6T and
Adding the results,while stocking the number of dice used
Imagine you roll only 6's
6x16=96,so roll another die ( or two 3's )
To reach 100
So say you rolled 17 d6T
These are your character points

 

[LadyElect]

Looks like I ended up on an ignore list as a result.

Ah, that explains my confusion as well. I thought I was being fair enough. Alas.

 

[Lyxen]

And a lot of people don't know this, which is why I am so firm on it. Players were given the sole authority to decide if they wanted randomized stats or not, and yet many DMs "put their foot down" and declare that they have no choice in the matter.

SAC (and therefore official): "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."

So no, players are never given any "sole authority", and even official rulings are not mandatory.

This is why, by the way, it should not really matter whether floating ASIs are an option or not. The only real benefit is for beginning DMs who can therefore more easily resist bullying players who insist that they are entitled to whatever they want in terms of character creation (and I've seen many of these coming to forums and whining about their "Bad DMs" - all the while whining as well about not finding enough DMs to run games for them).

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I don't want to discuss it either, especially in this thread, especially because I find it really amazing as to how this focuses on racial ASIs every single time, while at the same time ignoring things which, even in 5e, should be taken much more seriously by people interested by the subject:

• Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc gods, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god’s influence.)
• Orcs are savage humanoids with stooped postures, piggish faces, and prominent teeth that resemble tusks. They gather in tribes that satisfy their bloodlust by slaying any humanoids that stand against them.
• The orcs’ drive to reproduce runs stronger than any other humanoid race, and they readily crossbreed with other races.

But, for some reason (which I suspect but can't be sure of so I'll wait for confirmation), it's still only about the racial ASIs which, honestly, are really not offensive at all in 5e, being all positive, just spread differently in various races.

The reason it's not discussed here is because it has been discussed in litterally hundreds of orc threads, racism threads and so on over the past month, so discussion about that has been exhausted (and tend to be closed after a few thousands posts of going nowhere).

Besides, the obvious only way forward commercially for WotC being that orcs are no longer everything you quote, but just regular enlightened humans with slight changes, it sparked all the current and active threads about why having races in the first place if they only differ in cultures and thus can be interchanged (especially since most fantasy cultures are extremely multiracial), on the basis that only cosmetic changes doesn't make a race, much like like having green eyes and a uterus doesn't make one from another race than the one having brown eyes and a prostate.

 

[Scott Christian]

At our tables, we only use racial ASIs because it's a fantasy game and we know that not all fantasy races are and should be equal, for one, and because it's part of the fantasy tropes to have clever gnomes and strong half-orcs (or whatever attributes we use for whatever races). And even the half-orc wizard can one day be more clever than most elves and show them up if it's what his story is about, so how is that a problem ? And in any case, PCs and NPCs don't have scores tattooed on their foreheads.

If people want to do differently at their tables, perfect, the option is there, and everyone is entitled to whatever they want in their game, I'm not judging.

Hi Lynxen,
I tried for 60 pages to explain that the +1 rules many players' decisions during character creation. For better or worse. Some people try to obscure the actual reason; they shoot to definitions or call it being able to not create their vision for their character. Some (not on this thread), terribly, conflate racism with a fantasy race's starting bonus. But in the end, it is all about getting that +1.

The most difficult part through the debate, no matter how many times I see it, is one side's utter lack and refusal to say why they want floating ASIs instead of fixed ASIs. You can explain that it is about the +1, and that the +1 seems to hold a lot more relevance mechanically than other things in the game. And they might agree with you. But, the need to have +1. No way. Not them. It's because:

• they want to fix a "broken system"
• they want to be able to play the character they envision
• they want to be "viable" at the table they play on (for a min/max TPK table, I understand this)

So maybe you will be able to explain it better than me. I just try to see both sides.

PS - It doesn't help that some of my language about need is taken negatively, even though I don't know any other word that expresses the overall feel of why any player would want to get rid of floating ASIs.

 

[Lyxen]

I tried for 60 pages to explain that the +1 rules many players' decisions during character creation. For better or worse. Some people try to obscure the actual reason; they shoot to definitions or call it being able to not create their vision for their character. Some (not on this thread), terribly, conflate racism with a fantasy race's starting bonus. But in the end, it is all about getting that +1.

Yep, which is why I call floating ASIs a power option, because in the end, it's just technical for that +1 power.

The most difficult part through the debate, no matter how many times I see it, is one side's utter lack and refusal to say why they want floating ASIs instead of fixed ASIs. You can explain that it is about the +1, and that the +1 seems to hold a lot more relevance mechanically than other things in the game. And they might agree with you. But, the need to have +1. No way. Not them. It's because:

• they want to fix a "broken system"
• they want to be able to play the character they envision
• they want to be "viable" at the table they play on (for a min/max TPK table, I understand this)

I don't, not from a logical perspective, it's just another false reason, If the characters are even slightly less effective, the DM will make the necessary adjustments anyway.

So maybe you will be able to explain it better than me. I just try to see both sides.

I think that you have been as persuasive as you could, and I don't have any specific hope to be able to convince anyone in particular, when the entrenchment is so deep. However, just in case there are still people sitting on the fence, I thought I'd add some more facts and anecdotes.

And it's not completely hopeless, someone came out and said that he liked higher stats because he liked powergaming, which is fine in my book. If people want powerful characters, I'm absolutely fine with it, we ran very long campaigns of Amber DRPG, where one of the mottos is "if your players want more power, be sure to give them even more than they ask for, just remember to make them pay for it tenfold".

It's all the dissembling which makes things worse IMHO, and the reverse finger pointing rather than admitting the simple truth, which in turn makes it much easier to run games with the right spirit for the right group.

PS - It doesn't help that some of my language about need is taken negatively, even though I don't know any other word that expresses the overall feel of why any player would want to get rid of floating ASIs.

See above, you can be very accepting of any style of play and still people will not admit what they really like in games...

 

[Scott Christian]

Yep, which is why I call floating ASIs a power option, because in the end, it's just technical for that +1 power.

This seems to be the case, at least from my experience.

I don't, not from a logical perspective, it's just another false reason, If the characters are even slightly less effective, the DM will make the necessary adjustments anyway.

You could literally have a table where someone had no bonus, another with only a +1, etc. all the way through +5. And the game still would run just fine. D&D is incredibly flexible. You obviously, know this.

I think that you have been as persuasive as you could, and I don't have any specific hope to be able to convince anyone in particular, when the entrenchment is so deep. However, just in case there are still people sitting on the fence, I thought I'd add some more facts and anecdotes.

And it's not completely hopeless, someone came out and said that he liked higher stats because he liked powergaming, which is fine in my book. If people want powerful characters, I'm absolutely fine with it, we ran very long campaigns of Amber DRPG, where one of the mottos is "if your players want more power, be sure to give them even more than they ask for, just remember to make them pay for it tenfold".

It's all the dissembling which makes things worse IMHO, and the reverse finger pointing rather than admitting the simple truth, which in turn makes it much easier to run games with the right spirit for the right group.

Yes, I meant to mention that person in my post. I am absolutely fine if anyone says, I need the +1 because I want it. What I am not fine with is the dismantling of a systematic set of rules, that for many helped create 5e's theme, motif, flavor, etc. for the D&D races (among other things), and then turning around and arguing against people who wanted to keep the rule in place. All while refusing to admit the rule change, in the end, is really about a +1.
Sometimes, the debate steers towards more productive things, such as why being able to play against type is important (from a mechanical standpoint) or why the +1 seems to hold more sway over character creation than anything else. In my mind, those are great.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why? Honestly, I'm fine with Tasha's being how it is. It is now the default at my tables and I am content with that. It has changed no settings. It has removed no archetypes. All it has done is open up the space to make new archetypes.

They don't need 6e. My only issue is people continually bashing the floating scores as terrible just because they want character concepts they don't like to be punished with lower scores because they aren't playing to stereotypes.

Because people are calling for a lot more changes than just floating ability scores.

 

[MGibster]

So, why not a halfling with a 20 Strength like an orc? Why handicap the halfling until level 4? Why punish the halfling player by losing a feat?

Do you think we're punishing players with human characters when their PC doesn't have dark vision, a resistance to charm, and must sleep instead of meditate for a few hours? It seems rather arbitrary to rally against ASI on the grounds that they're racist while keeping abilities like Luck, dark vision, extra encumbrance, etc., etc. As to why a halfling can't have a 20 Strength like an orc it's because it's silly. Now I've run plenty of silly D&D games where a halfling or a gnome with a 20 Strength would fit right in so I'm not knocking the idea entirely. But for a more serious campaign I just don't care for the idea that a three foot creature weighing in at 40-45 pounds is just as strong as a 240 pound orc standing at 6 foot 2 inches.

And I know you might be thinking, "You accept all sorts of silly things. Like fireballs, flying dragons, and so many different intelligent humanoids concentrated in a tiny area so why not halflings with a 20 Strength?" Verisimilitude I guess. A halflings with a 20 Strength breaks it for me in a way that a dragon does not.

 

[Lyxen]

You could literally have a table where someone had no bonus, another with only a +1, etc. all the way through +5. And the game still would run just fine. D&D is incredibly flexible. You obviously, know this.

What would be just funny if it was not so sad and annoying at some level would be if people realised this and coupled the fact that they want to powergame and allow incredible scores (usually through rolled stats) with their complaints about the encounter computation system not working.

Yes, I meant to mention that person in my post. I am absolutely fine if anyone says, I need the +1 because I want it. What I am not fine with is the dismantling of a systematic set of rules, that for many helped create 5e's theme, motif, flavor, etc. for the D&D races (among other things), and then turning around and arguing against people who wanted to keep the rule in place. All while refusing to admit the rule change, in the end, is really about a +1.
Sometimes, the debate steers towards more productive things, such as why being able to play against type is important (from a mechanical standpoint) or why the +1 seems to hold more sway over character creation than anything else. In my mind, those are great.

Indeed, because as a DM I aim to please my players. But for that, I need them to express what they really want in the game. If they dissemble and hide the fact that they want to powerplay, it's just going to be more difficult to please them. I have no problem running a powergame at all, and lots of experience doing so, and D&D is a high fantasy game for heroes anyway.

But the fact is that the game does not need incredible scores to do this either, for once, and the other difficulty is running a game for players looking for various things. It's easy, during the course of one game, to speed up roleplaying a bit and launch some action for people who want this as well, but the problem is it's much harder, once characters have been defined, to change them and balance them so that everyone can have their turn in the spotlight where technical gaming matters.

Of course, as a DM, it's theoretically not that difficult to steer power things through rulings or even magical items during the course of the campaign. But when you do this, the powergamers who optimised their characters at the start are still going to complain about favoritism (when all you are doing is making sure that everyone around the table has fun). So the only way is to minimise the discrepancies at start and make sure that they don't accumulate through the levels.

Finally, and we had a hint of this a few posts ago, there is still the problem that people who powergame think that they are better D&D players because they think they understand how to make a more powerful character, which is absolutely not true, especially when in fact all they know is how to parrot computations that they have seen somewhere else...