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

[LadyElect]

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).

I don't think this portion is necessarily true, since races are given unique traits as well. I understand the desire clarified earlier in the topic for not finding traits to be solely sufficient, and I understand that the combination of unique traits and ASIs provides a cyclical reinforcement of the written depictions. But they are ultimately each individually designed from the same source, that depiction. From a purely design perspective, if ASIs were eliminated altogether then the traits alone would still differentiate the races—just not to the mechanical degree it seems many enjoy.

 

[Lyxen]

And this is where I think the various gradations of "powergaming" become important, and why I think the black & white portrayal of optimization leads us astray.

Yes, there are extreme optimizers out there who will switch from Wood Elf monk to Tortle monk (or whatever the theorycrafters say) because the racials are slightly better. But you don't want to play with those people anyway, do you?

It depends, some of them are my dear friends, people I have gamed with for 30+ years. So yes, I want them at my table, because they are my friends, good players (not only in the tactical, technical sense), and very good roleplayers, if they are not given free reign (as was the case in 3e) to overshadow and outshine all the characters of other players who are also good players, but can't be bothered to read guides and forums for days on end to play a nice roleplaying game with their friends, and who have just as much the right to be heroes and to have their turn in the spotlight of adventures.

And in between the two extremes are LOTS of players...like me...who have a hard time saying no to +2 in my primary attribute, but who otherwise don't need to be 100% optimized. I don't want floating ASIs in order to powergame more, I want it to so I can powergame less.

Look, I want to believe it, but I've never met players like you. Perhaps you can show us examples of characters that you have really played that show that you made that kind of choice ?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh, wait...what? Did I not read Tasha's carefully? How do you get an 18?

Custom Lineage​
Ability Scores: Choose any +2
Size: Small/Medium
Speed: 30 ft.
Instead of choosing one of the game's races for your character at 1st level, you can use the following traits to represent your character's lineage, giving you full control over how your character's origin shaped them: Creature Type. You are a humanoid. You determine your appearance and whether you resemble any of your kin. Size. You are Small or Medium (your choice). Feat. You gain one feat of your choice for which you qualify. Variable Trait. You gain one of the following options of your choice: (a) darkvision with a range of 60 feet or (b) proficiency in one skill of your choice. Languages. You can speak, read, and write Common and one other language that you and your DM agree is appropriate for your character.

+2 to any stat, then take a half feat as your feat fiving +1 to that same stat.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No he would not. He would just pick the most powerful combination as indicated by the guides, just as he would have picked the previous combination pre-Tasha for exactly the same reason. It would just not be the same one, but the new one would be more "powerful" as indicated by the guides, and therefore increase the discrepancy with non-optimised combinations.

That just feels highly dismissive of a whole swath of players, suggesting that they are not intelligent enough to make their own decisions, and are just following "what the guides tell them to do".

 

[Bill Zebub]

Custom Lineage​
Ability Scores: Choose any +2
Size: Small/Medium
Speed: 30 ft.
Instead of choosing one of the game's races for your character at 1st level, you can use the following traits to represent your character's lineage, giving you full control over how your character's origin shaped them: Creature Type. You are a humanoid. You determine your appearance and whether you resemble any of your kin. Size. You are Small or Medium (your choice). Feat. You gain one feat of your choice for which you qualify. Variable Trait. You gain one of the following options of your choice: (a) darkvision with a range of 60 feet or (b) proficiency in one skill of your choice. Languages. You can speak, read, and write Common and one other language that you and your DM agree is appropriate for your character.

+2 to any stat, then take a half feat as your feat fiving +1 to that same stat.

OMG I AM TOTALLY GOING TO WTFPWN ALL THE OTHER PLAYERS WITH MY NEXT CHARACTER.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It depends, some of them are my dear friends, people I have gamed with for 30+ years. So yes, I want them at my table, because they are my friends, good players (not only in the tactical, technical sense), and very good roleplayers, if they are not given free reign (as was the case in 3e) to overshadow and outshine all the characters of other players who are also good players, but can't be bothered to read guides and forums for days on end to play a nice roleplaying game with their friends, and who have just as much the right to be heroes and to have their turn in the spotlight of adventures.



Look, I want to believe it, but I've never met players like you. Perhaps you can show us examples of characters that you have really played that show that you made that kind of choice ?

Well, I haven't started any new campaigns since Tasha's, so you're only going to see either characters that have race/class ASI synergy, or lots and lots (and lots) of variant humans.

But, as I just posted above, I've really wanted to play a Tiefling monk. A half-orc paladin is another I've wanted to play.

Although, really, I could make up anything I wanted whether or not it's true, so I'm not sure this line of reasoning leads to anything productive. And, in any event, the virulence of your dislike of powergaming makes me suspect I'm pushing a stone uphill here.

 

[Lyxen]

That just feels highly dismissive of a whole swath of players, suggesting that they are not intelligent enough to make their own decisions, and are just following "what the guides tell them to do".

Is it really a whole swath ? And is it stupid to follow guides of experienced players ? After that, it all depends on your capacities and on the amount of time that you want to put in creating your character, how much time you want to spend on technicalities and how much on your background and integration in the history of the campaign.

These guides exist for a reason, and seeing the way some are regarded, and the way some of their authors are regarded as demigods by parts of the community (just look at these forums when some names appear), seeing the way some posts start, etc.

By the way, it's not necessarily a bad thing. For example I love Treantmonk's views about playing a wizard, they have always been my favourite class and I've played them that way in every single edition starting with BECMI, not because of fireball or damage dealing but because of all the incredible plot elements that I can generate and deal with thanks to the utilities. He really encourages players to be inventive.

 

[Scribe]

OMG I AM TOTALLY GOING TO WTFPWN ALL THE OTHER PLAYERS WITH MY NEXT CHARACTER.

Funny thing is, this option exists in the same rule set where feats are disallowed, and ASI is restricted.

And we really want to claim the game is balanced tightly?

I think not.

 

[Scott Christian]

I don't think this portion is necessarily true, since races are given unique traits as well. I understand the desire clarified earlier in the topic for not finding traits to be solely sufficient, and I understand that the combination of unique traits and ASIs provides a cyclical reinforcement of the written depictions. But they are ultimately each individually designed from the same source, that depiction. From a purely design perspective, if ASIs were eliminated altogether then the traits alone would still differentiate the races—just not to the mechanical degree it seems many enjoy.

I agree with this and it is a fair point. But ASIs are there. But you are right, if removed, then all we would have to reinforce differentiation in races would be their traits. This goes back to there only being so many dials to turn, and for better or worse (who knows?), attributes are the primary dial.

 

[Maxperson]

No he would not. He would just pick the most powerful combination as indicated by the guides, just as he would have picked the previous combination pre-Tasha for exactly the same reason. It would just not be the same one, but the new one would be more "powerful" as indicated by the guides, and therefore increase the discrepancy with non-optimised combinations.

No. A powergamer would do that. A simple optimizer would not. I have on occasion done just as I said, so that itself is proof that you are wrong. Optimization is a scale which only at the high end is powergaming.

Again, that does not prevent him from roleplaying that combination. But the choices of a powergamer are not done for roleplaying.

Right. I'm talking about a limited optimizer, not a powergamer.

You know what, it's easy, just show us characters that you really play, and we'll see whether you really used these floating ASIs for roleplaying...

Wouldn't matter. I can in fact pick a race with non-optimal racial abilities(the other 90% of races) and still put my ASI in the optimal stat. Optimizing without powergaming.