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

[Bill Zebub]

The main argument for floating ASI is largely the same one in favor of racial ASI. IF* it is the case that racial ASI "helps the themes, motifs, archetypes, culture and worldbuilding of the game" by "attaching the fluff to the mechanics" --if that's truly the case, then if you want a world with different or merely expanded themes, motifs, archetypes, culture, and worldbuilding, the existing racial ASI will either be a limitation or irrelevant. So we can ask whether the implicit setting of the core books should hew to those classic archetypes. If the answer is yes, proceed with racial ASI, if the answer is no, then you need a more versatile mechanic.

[*if racial ASI serves that purpose. The other argument, one more against racial ASI than in favor of floating ASI, is that racial ASI doesn't actually do a good job of reinforcing those classic themes and archetypes. If you can say to the powergamer, "the +1 in your stat doesn't really matter that much for how your character feels at the table, it's just 5%," then that same argument can be used to say, "the +1 doesn't really help distinguish races from one other, it's just 5%." Further, the fact that ASI is not unique to race but also comes from class progression means weakens its distinctiveness. Here's where we can turn to other games and suggest racial feats and abilities as a better mechanic than racial ASI for the purpose of developing themes, motifs, archetypes, and cultures. Alternatively, we can turn to OD&D, where there were no ability score modifications but races were restricted to certain classes, or basic, where race was class, and see if the mechanics there do a better job than 5e.]

To give you a sense of my stakes in this discussion, if I wanted a game that supported the classic themes, motifs, archetypes, culture and worldbuilding of dnd, I would not choose 5e. There's too much in the game that doesn't work well toward that purpose. Instead, I would choose a version of basic dnd (probably Old School Essentials). But I can take at face value that for other people the default mechanics of 5e do a good enough job of providing the necessary archetypes via racial ASI. Again, if that is truly the case, then for those wanting a slightly expanded array of archetypes need to add versatility with the mechanics.

In general I’m wary of everybody just Liking every post on their own side of the debate, but I think this post lays out some of the thinking especially succinctly and clearly.

 

[Scott Christian]

Oh, I see. Yes, the reason for wanting floating ASIs is all about the +1. In the sense of “stop making me choose between +1 and race.”

I thought the claim was more sweeping, that for people who want 16s the game of D&D “is all about maximizing your primary attribute.” As in, a single minded focus on this one thing.

The term I used was the +1 tends to make all the other things about a race lose focus. It gets lost during character creation because of the racial ASI. Again, I think this can be a good thing for certain players and DMs, but terrible for others.

 

[Scribe]

But I can take at face value that for other people the default mechanics of 5e do a good enough job of providing the necessary archetypes via racial ASI

This is me, it's not ideal or perfect but it works, can be adjusted, and is 'the' big RPG.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

The main argument for floating ASI is largely the same one in favor of racial ASI. IF* it is the case that racial ASI "helps the themes, motifs, archetypes, culture and worldbuilding of the game" by "attaching the fluff to the mechanics" --if that's truly the case, then if you want a world with different or merely expanded themes, motifs, archetypes, culture, and worldbuilding, the existing racial ASI will either be a limitation or irrelevant.

Exactly. That's why races need to be tied to the setting, unless the setting uses the default assumptions.

So we can ask whether the implicit setting of the core books should hew to those classic archetypes. If the answer is yes, proceed with racial ASI, if the answer is no, then you need a more versatile mechanic.

Certainly the implied setting isn't married to the current assumptions. I think it's totally possible to adopt a new set of assumptions, that would be reflected by different ASIs and racial abilities. It is also possible to embrace a setting where no race is described as strong, dextrous, tough, intelligent, wise or good-looking compared to other, rendering ASIs moot.

On the other hand, changing the implied setting and have redesigned races would be coherent with a 6e, especially if they choose to have no implied setting (and therefore redesigning the character creation rules as they'd need to a standalone game anyway).

Again, if that is truly the case, then for those wanting a slightly expanded array of archetypes need to add versatility with the mechanics.

Isn't having the optional rules of floating ASIs, as presented in Tasha, enough?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I've been saying that the root of the problem is that classes are too SAD, but I think there are actually two factors at play here:
1. Classes are too SAD, even the supposedly MAD ones
2. Races are insufficiently differentiated mechanically

The problem, from my point of view, is that trying to use racial ASIs to boost the mechanical differentiation of races collides with the first factor: the more you use ASIs to distinguish the classes, the more incentive there is to powergame by only choosing certain combinations.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

Re halfling Strength score 20

A gnome can easily be Strength 20 because it is a magical creature. In Scandinavia, the small nisse is superhumanly strong because it is the immaterial force of the mind of a house. In D&D terms, the Stength of a fey or a shadow doesnt correspond to having biological muscles. So if a player wants a Gnome with 20 Strength score, no problem.

The halfling depends on what the concept is. To the degree that the setting is Tolkien, the halfling appears to be one of the smaller human ethnicities. Humans can get Stength score +2 using their feat, and a small human, say shy of 4 feet tall, would not mechanically prevent this.

If the halfling is actually a small human child, the it is difficult to imagine high Strength. But if the halfling isnt human at all, then there is no problem. A halfling is about the same size as a chimpanzee, and a chimpanzee can be extremely strong.

Possibly D&D characterizes the halfling as a nonmagical creature. But its lucky trait seems magical, even fey. Perhaps the halfling has gnomish ancestry and is magically strong.

There are various ways to explain exceptional Strength. It would be easier if the halfling had a clearer identity, rather than left as a vague placeholder for Tolkien movies and novels.

The D&D game allocates different jurisdictions. The player needs to be in control of what character concept one wants to play, especially to ensure the reallife player is comfortable with the character, but also to ensure the character is interesting and fun to the player.

At the same time, the DM needs to be in control of the setting, including how the world works, the tone such as drama or comedy or so on, and the places and ethnicities of the setting.

All of this is normal session zero stuff. Hopefully the DM is enthusiastic about a setting that the players are into. And hopefully the players are building character concepts that the DM can enjoy thinking about.

I rarely see halfling characters.

But as a player I did have a character concept dispute about cantrips. While playing in a 4e campaign, my friend wanted to DM a 3e campaign. Heh, he already knew that I loathe D&D gods, and that was a nonissue for him. My character was an elf Cleric who focused on the mystical aspects of light as both energy and consciousness. What turned out to be an issue is cantrips. He hated cantrips (I forget why). But I hated being without cantrips. For me, the mage is an important archetype, and being forced to use nonmagical weapons for most of the game is unfun. So we negotiated. As an elf, my bow shot arrows of light energy, tnat were mechanically identical to arrows, except luminous and occasionally might matter versus undead or so on. Both of us were happy. It was close enough to a normal weapon for him, and appropriate enough to the Cleric concept, and close enough to a cantrip for me for the concept of a magical character. After session zero the campaign proved awesome.

The point is session zero is when the player control of the character and the DM control of the setting, can be incongruent. When it is important to have a character that is atypical in some way in the setting, both the player and the DM need to agree on how that character fits in the setting.

So if a DM who hates strong halflings has a player who loves them, fight out why they care. If it is more than a passing whim, explore ways that it might seem to work. Maybe the halfling has a great gramdfather who is a grugach elf hiding as in the form of a halfling. A background story can come from it.

 

[Scribe]

the more you use ASIs to distinguish the classes, the more incentive there is to powergame by only choosing certain combinations.

This isn't a problem though.

 

[Scribe]

Re halfling Strength score 20

A gnome can easily be Strength 20 because it is a magical creature. In Scandinavia, the small nisse is superhumanly strong because it is the immaterial force of the mind of a house. In D&D terms, the Stength of a fey or a shadow doesnt correspond to having biological muscles. So if a player wants a Gnome with 20 Strength score, no problem.

The halfling depends on what the concept is. To the degree that the setting is Tolkien, the halfling appears to be one of the smaller human ethnicities. Humans can get Stength score +2 using their feat, and a small human, say shy of 4 feet tall, would not mechanically prevent this.

If the halfling is actually a small human child, the it is difficult to imagine high Strength. But if the halfling isnt human at all, then there is no problem. A halfling is about the same size as a chimpanzee, and a chimpanzee can be extremely strong.

Possibly D&D characterizes the halfling as a nonmagical creature. But its lucky trait seems magical, even fey. Perhaps the halfling has gnomish ancestry and is magically strong.

There are various ways to explain exceptional Strength. It would be easier if the halfling had a clearer identity, rather than left as a vague placeholder for Tolkien movies and novels.

The D&D game allocates different jurisdictions. The player needs to be in control of what character concept one wants to play, especially to ensure the reallife player is comfortable with the character, but also to ensure the character is interesting and fun to the player.

At the same time, the DM needs to be in control of the setting, including how the world works, the tone such as drama or comedy or so on, and the places and ethnicities of the setting.

All of this is normal session zero stuff. Hopefully the DM is enthusiastic about a setting that the players are into. And hopefully the players are building character concepts that the DM can enjoy thinking about.

I rarely see halfling characters.

But as a player I did have a character concept dispute about cantrips. While playing in a 4e campaign, my friend wanted to DM a 3e campaign. Heh, he already knew that I loathe D&D gods, and that was a nonissue for him. My character was an elf Cleric who focused on the mystical aspects of light as both energy and consciousness. What turned out to be an issue is cantrips. He hated cantrips (I forget why). But I hated being without cantrips. For me, the mage is an important archetype, and being forced to use nonmagical weapons for most of the game is unfun. So we negotiated. As an elf, my bow shot arrows of light energy, tnat were mechanically identical to arrows, except luminous and occasionally might matter versus undead or so on. Both of us were happy. It was close enough to a normal weapon for him, and appropriate enough to the Cleric concept, and close enough to a cantrip for me for the concept of a magical character. After session zero the campaign proved awesome.

The point is session zero is when the player control of the character and the DM control of the setting, can be incongruent. When it is important to have a character that is atypical in some way in the setting, both the player and the DM need to agree on how that character fits in the setting.

So if a DM who hates strong halflings has a player who loves them, fight out why they care. If it is more than a passing whim, explore ways that it might seem to work. Maybe the halfling has a great gramdfather who is a grugach elf hiding as in the form of a halfling. A background story can come from it.

Great post, but if you want to be a strong halfling in my game, you better find a belt of giant strength.

 

[Maxperson]

The main argument for floating ASI is largely the same one in favor of racial ASI. IF* it is the case that racial ASI "helps the themes, motifs, archetypes, culture and worldbuilding of the game" by "attaching the fluff to the mechanics" --if that's truly the case, then if you want a world with different or merely expanded themes, motifs, archetypes, culture, and worldbuilding, the existing racial ASI will either be a limitation or irrelevant. So we can ask whether the implicit setting of the core books should hew to those classic archetypes. If the answer is yes, proceed with racial ASI, if the answer is no, then you need a more versatile mechanic.

For sure. A floating ASI supports other themes and character types. What it boils down to is which has priority for you. For me, I want the more realistic racial ASIs and the themes, archetypes, etc. that the racial bonuses support.

[*if racial ASI serves that purpose. The other argument, one more against racial ASI than in favor of floating ASI, is that racial ASI doesn't actually do a good job of reinforcing those classic themes and archetypes. If you can say to the powergamer, "the +1 in your stat doesn't really matter that much for how your character feels at the table, it's just 5%," then that same argument can be used to say, "the +1 doesn't really help distinguish races from one other, it's just 5%." Further, the fact that ASI is not unique to race but also comes from class progression means weakens its distinctiveness. Here's where we can turn to other games and suggest racial feats and abilities as a better mechanic than racial ASI for the purpose of developing themes, motifs, archetypes, and cultures. Alternatively, we can turn to OD&D, where there were no ability score modifications but races were restricted to certain classes, or basic, where race was class, and see if the mechanics there do a better job than 5e.]

It's not about distinguishing one race from another. It's for reinforcing the archetype for the race in question. By providing strength bonuses for mountain dwarves and wisdom for hill dwarves, and con for all dwarves, the archetypes of hardy dwarves that are often fighters and clerics is supported and reinforced.

 

[Yaarel]

Great post, but if you want to be a strong halfling in my game, you better find a belt of giant strength.

Heh, maybe the halfling parents performed a ritual that infused their thirteen year old with the magic from a Belt of Giant Strength?