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

[FrogReaver]

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.

The problem here is that all racial abilities fall into this category and not just racial ASIs. Which makes the question why have any predefined races at all?

 

[Scribe]

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

Maybe, could be. Literally anything can be handled or explained if people want. 'Her great great great great grandfather was a fire giant....don't ask.'

Won't happen for me, but yes, go nuts with your DM, this flexibility is a feature of 5e.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

I want first to correct a common misconception. Halflings are not size of a chimpanzee. People commonly assume that chimps are far smaller than they actually are as in a lot of films and shows they use young bonono chimps, as those are far easier to handle and are far less dangerous if they get angry. An adult chimpanzee is four to five feet tall and males weight sixty or so kilos. Their muscle structure makes them about 1.5 times as strong as human pound for pound, meaning that adult male chimp is probably stronger than an average human. A halfling sized small chimp would still be weaker than an average human though.

And yes, for fictional world you can make up magical or similar reason why a small creature might be stronger than they appear, a big creature weaker than they appear and so forth. But to me it starts to get pretty farcical if these weird fantasy reasons seem to always conspire to make it so that all the sapient species just happen to have the exact same range of capability in all areas of competence. Dozens of species, looking wildly different, being wildly different sizes and they all just happen to have the exact same range of capability in everything! What are the odds!

I actually want the rules to try to represent the differences instead of coming up excuses why the differences wouldn't exist. And I repeat the same point I've said many times in many threads: ultimately there is no point of having fantasy species if they cannot be different than humans. We already have humans that are like humans.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The problem here is that all racial abilities fall into this category and not just racial ASIs. Which makes the question why have any predefined races at all?

Welcome to the discussion! This has been mentioned many times, but it's a looooong thread (I myself joined halfway through) so no surprise you missed it.

The problem seems to be that ASIs are perceived to have too much class-specific impact (whether or not that's true), whereas other racial abilities are both less quantifiable and more useful for all classes.

For example, darkvision is clearly highly useful for rogues, but it's all pretty darned useful for other classes. And you can't really put a number on how useful it is.

So the argument...backed up by people (like me) who say, "I optimize race and class based on ASIs, but probably wouldn't do that based on the non-ASI abilities)"...is that by getting rid of racial ASIs the choice would matter less from an optimization perspective, making it easier to make the choice for roleplaying/storytelling reasons.

Would some people still try to optimize perfectly? Sure. But you gotta figure there aren't only two kinds of players (optimizers and non-optimizers), rather it's a spectrum, and the more you can balance the races across classes the more people will stop bothering to optimize.

(sorry that was totally incoherent after the first pass; edited for clarity.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

Maybe, could be. Literally anything can be handled or explained if people want. 'Her great great great great grandfather was a fire giant....don't ask.'

Won't happen for me, but yes, go nuts with your DM, this flexibility is a feature of 5e.

Although I have used rapiers twice as a rough analogy about game preferences, I'm beginning increasingly convinced that it's really a close match for at least part of this discussion.

The reason I dislike rapiers is not because they are the most powerful finesse weapon and that's imbalancing...I really could care less about the additional 1 (average) damage per hit. It's just that rapiers have an aesthetic connotation that doesn't fit with my preferred image of the game world.

By the same token, it's clear that @Yaarel has some explanations for why some halflings (or even just a halfing) could be super strong that just doesn't fit with what you imagine in your game world.

I think if D&D didn't already have rapiers, let alone the bizarre steampunk techno-aesthetic that has permeated so much of it, and it looked like the game was drifting in a way that would normalize such things, I would probably be on the other side of this debate, arguing that the game is fine as it is and doesn't need to be changed. And I would probably try to bolster my argument by explaining how my view "makes sense" and that there is something wrong with the playstyle of the people who want to ruin my game. But it's not really about mechanics or power-gaming or balance or anything like that; it's just about one's preferred aesthetic. And I get that.

 

[MGibster]

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.

No doubt. We can come up with all sorts of valid reasons why a gnome or a halfling might have a 20 Strength. Maybe as an infant that halfling was dropped into a cauldron an alchemist was using to prepare potions of giant strength. Maybe the halfling has some giant in his ancestry? Perhaps he's descended from a god? This is one of those things that's just a matter of preference. If you prefer a game where a halfling can have a 20 Strength then I say more power to you. I actually prefer a game where halflings are not as strong as orcs. My preference isn't any more valid than yours. I don't care how we justify that 20 Strength I just find it silly regardless. Which is fine when I'm running a silly campaign like Acquisitions Incorporated but not so good when I'm running a more serious game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No doubt. We can come up with all sorts of valid reasons why a gnome or a halfling might have a 20 Strength. Maybe as an infant that halfling was dropped into a cauldron an alchemist was using to prepare potions of giant strength. Maybe the halfling has some giant in his ancestry? Perhaps he's descended from a god? This is one of those things that's just a matter of preference. If you prefer a game where a halfling can have a 20 Strength then I say more power to you. I actually prefer a game where halflings are not as strong as orcs. My preference isn't any more valid than yours. I don't care how we justify that 20 Strength I just find it silly regardless. Which is fine when I'm running a silly campaign like Acquisitions Incorporated but not so good when I'm running a more serious game.

Bit by a radioactive spider. Sent by parents to escape destruction of home planet. Injected with serum by military.

 

[Scribe]

Although I have used rapiers twice as a rough analogy about game preferences, I'm beginning increasingly convinced that it's really a close match for at least part of this discussion.

The reason I dislike rapiers is not because they are the most powerful finesse weapon and that's imbalancing...I really could care less about the additional 1 (average) damage per hit. It's just that rapiers have an aesthetic connotation that doesn't fit with my preferred image of the game world.

By the same token, it's clear that @Yaarel has some explanations for why some halflings (or even just a halfing) could be super strong that just doesn't fit with what you imagine in your game world.

I think if D&D didn't already have rapiers, let alone the bizarre steampunk techno-aesthetic that has permeated so much of it, and it looked like the game was drifting in a way that would normalize such things, I would probably be on the other side of this debate, arguing that the game is fine as it is and doesn't need to be changed. And I would probably try to bolster my argument by explaining how my view "makes sense" and that there is something wrong with the playstyle of the people who want to ruin my game. But it's not really about mechanics or power-gaming or balance or anything like that; it's just about one's preferred aesthetic. And I get that.

And now go one step further.

Not only is a aesthetic you dislike being pushed further, and replacing one you like.

Now you are being told that what you like shouldn't exist, needs to be forgotten, and you yourself may even be a racist for liking it.

Because that's where some of us have been.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And now go one step further.

Not only is a aesthetic you dislike being pushed further, and replacing one you like.

Now you are being told that what you like shouldn't exist, needs to be forgotten, and you yourself may even be a racist for liking it.

Because that's where some of us have been.

So, that's the part I don't agree with. I think these two things are identical.

I don't have to use a rapier. The choices I like...short swords and daggers...are still a subset of the broader choices available.

But, yeah, I do have to let other people pick rapier. And it bugs me to no end.

Similarly, you would still be free to put your ASIs wherever you want, for your characters. But, yeah, this might all end with you having to let other people choose an aesthetic you don't like. (Or risk being called a jerk DM.)

 

[Yaarel]

It absolutely does. Elves being more agile than dwarves is not one of those problematic elements.

Actually, it is.

D&D tropes are often ethnocentric.

I am Norwegian, not English.

When I play an elf, I want the Norse concept of an elf, not the Tolkien one.

When I play a dwarf, I want to play the Norse concept of a dwarf, not the Tolkien one.

The Norse elf is especially magical, and not especially dextrous. They fight with magic, not with bows.

I am uncomfortable being coerced to play a Tolkien elf. Because it misrepresents my ethnic heritage.