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

[Scott Christian]

Yes, and I think this is key. Too many of the arguments against floating ASIs seem to be based on the belief that a player is one or the other. When really what goes on, I believe, is that for a lot of people the instinct to powergame wins out on this one decision (probably because, as has been noted, the mechanical differences between the races really are quite minimal). Whereas more flexibility disentangling race from attributes in character creation would let the roleplaying instinct win more often.

I think you are right, for some players.

For other players, removing the floating ASIs disentangles the theme and feel of the world and its cultures, thus negating a piece of the roleplaying needed during character creation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The popularity of 5e shows that it's the case. If a majority was discontent with the game, it would not going on that strongly.



It's really interesting to see how extremely minor and, more importantly totally optional changes are seen as a victory by the above minority. However, not only are the changes extremely limited, but the core books are totally unchanged, no reprint changes, whether in technicalities nor in "political correctness" (the orc perspective is unchanged from 7 years ago), and power creep is totally under control, while still keeping at bay the most critical adversaries of the game with some announcements barely followed by any real change. For me, this is a mastery of the game and its environment that I can only applaud, both from a management and a player perspective. Esepcially, if I may say so, a long term player perspective who not only loves the game, but does not particularly want to throw all his investment in the bin like what was done in half the time by 3e, then 3.5,then 4e. YMMV and YCMV but still...



And my take is that this will not happen for a long, a very long time, because that would indeed cause the sales figures of 5e to crash as people would stop buying anything to wait for 6e anyway, whatever the contents of the new edition. Moreover, one of the reasons for the success of 5e was the extensive open playtesting that gave the edition that we have today. After the crash of 4e, it was an easy decision to make to do things this way, they had almost nothing to lose, but not only is it a very costly undertaking, but it's not the case today, and considering the immense success of 5e, there is a high likelihood that any such sort of polling would probably result in the same kind of game that 5e is, an extremely flexible game that allows so many different playstyles and really facilitates the induction of new players, whereas most of what the minority wants is a return to the extremely crunchy and geeky games of previous editions which have, on the contrary, proven that they do not last long (so ROI is poor) and that their audience is extremely limited.

The popularity of the game shows that a lot of people like it, not why they like it. They may enjoy the "best of previous editions" vibe 5e started with back in 2014, or they may be fans of no alignment and floating ASIs from 2020, or they may not care about any of that.

The changes in Tasha's, while not (yet) reflected in the core books, have been explicitly stated as the rule going forward; they are not intended to be optional anymore, if indeed they ever wanted them to be. The only reason this paradigm isn't in the PH is that WotC is waiting for the right marketing moment to reprint.

I agree with you that it's unlikely for WotC to make a big change for 6e, but I still think they should. The cultural moment we live in is implicitly saying that the structure D&D is built on is inherently problematic. I don't agree, but we're hearing very loud voices pushing that agenda. Half measures aren't going to satisfy these people.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

While I agree with you in the big picture, in the interest of fairness I have to say that I find this version of the opposing view to be kind of like "some people need to have what Billy has". I can see why it seems to you that they want to punish people who don't conform to stereotypes, but that's not what they are saying.

I would instead say, "It seems to me the effect of the rules is to punish players who..." or something like that.

Golden Rule and all that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

...thus negating a piece of the roleplaying needed during character creation.

Oh, now that's interesting, and new (or, at least, a facet of the argument I hadn't realized was there).

Can you explain why you think the entanglement causes this? Is it because players (new players? all players?) need some image in mind of the races in question while making their character? And, if so, wouldn't the paragraphs of fluff provide this? Why is that little "+2" (which is shared by other races) so vital here?

 

[Bill Zebub]

No, "people" are not calling for a lot of changes. 5e is the most successful D&D edition either, still going extremely strong and actually drawing more and more people to it. This puts the statistics firmly where they belong, and the fact that a few people would like a different D&D game for various reasons needs to be seen for what it is, a minority, especially since the game is so flexible that it already accommodates so many playing styles.

Not to wander too far off topic, but the argument that D&D is the most popular RPG ever, thus the majority of people are fine with this particular detail, is fallacious. Hopefully you don't need extensive argument to show why that's true. Or maybe some of the people who agree with you about racial ASIs will step up here and speak truth. (Just noticed that @Micah Sweet did.)

I mean, it probably is true that a minority are opposed to racial ASIs. And it's probably also true that a minority want to keep them. I would guess that the vast, overwhelming majority doesn't really have an opinion. And that would be true whether it's the most dominant RPG in history, or a niche indie game.

 

[Scribe]

Oh, now that's interesting, and new (or, at least, a facet of the argument I hadn't realized was there).

Can you explain why you think the entanglement causes this? Is it because players (new players? all players?) need some image in mind of the races in question while making their character? And, if so, wouldn't the paragraphs of fluff provide this? Why is that little "+2" (which is shared by other races) so vital here?

We covered it a few dozen pages ago.

1. Popular media says and shows Elves have super natural grace. (Legolas)
2. PHB describes Elves as graceful.
3. Dexterity is understood to be the grace as agility stat.
4. Elves get a bonus to Dexterity, because we know they are a graceful species.

Therefore, the archetype in social consciousness exists, is supported by the lore and World building, as well as being reinforced mechanically, to provide a more cohesive view.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I agree with you that it's unlikely for WotC to make a big change for 6e, but I still think they should. The cultural moment we live in is implicitly saying that the structure D&D is built on is inherently problematic. I don't agree, but we're hearing very loud voices pushing that agenda. Half measures aren't going to satisfy these people.

I think the writing is on the wall here. This thread is not going to change anybody's mind on the issue at hand, let alone persuade WotC of anything. The only reason the debate is worth continuing is because it's possible to learn something about other people, and even about game design, if we stay open to really hearing what others say.

 

[abirdcall]

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.

View attachment 142603

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.

I don't have a problem with the potential of a halfling with 20 strength. I've never actually seen it in play because 5e design is working as intended. Even a halfling strength fighter is going to take a lot of levels to get there because we play with feats and they are probably going to take 1 or 2.

 

[Scott Christian]

Oh, now that's interesting, and new (or, at least, a facet of the argument I hadn't realized was there).

Can you explain why you think the entanglement causes this? Is it because players (new players? all players?) need some image in mind of the races in question while making their character? And, if so, wouldn't the paragraphs of fluff provide this? Why is that little "+2" (which is shared by other races) so vital here?

It goes back to what I was saying about adding to the themes and motifs that are the D&D world. The thinking, in my opinion, runs parallel to Max's elves are described as graceful and have racial feats that imply grace, and therefore, the +2 also helps represent that. Without it, the other things seem to fall short.
And they kind of do if you think about it. There is only one way in D&D to imply an entire race is a certain way - through attribute bonuses (or negatives for old school players). And I do think the adjectives can get changed to where this important fact (for some players) gets obscured. That racial bonus implies a great deal to people: orcs are strong, but for DMs and players, orcs are strong because they are tribal. And that means they have to work hard, hunt sometimes dangerous things, fight for resources, and fight for status in their society. Gnomes are smart because they needed to design and engineer complex machinery, which in turn, propels them to learn quickly. These attributes are about culture just as much as they are about race.
(For the record, I am fine with having other orcs be smart or wise or whatever. Just make it a different world.)

And that leads most players to look at the art and language used and have it all make sense. I think we all like individualism, but you can't have individualism when there are no norms. That is where playing against type comes in.

Hope that explains things.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh, now that's interesting, and new (or, at least, a facet of the argument I hadn't realized was there).

Can you explain why you think the entanglement causes this? Is it because players (new players? all players?) need some image in mind of the races in question while making their character? And, if so, wouldn't the paragraphs of fluff provide this? Why is that little "+2" (which is shared by other races) so vital here?

I don't think it is new at all, just worded a bit differently. It is about the rules being entangled with the fiction and actually trying to represent things in it, instead of just being arbitrary numbers. Some people need that to be engaged in the game. I know I do. This is related to the whole disassociated mechanics debacle that was one of the biggest complaints about 4e. When the rules lose their connection to the fiction some players lose interest. Granted, this is a really minor version of it, but I feel the sentiment still stems from the same place.