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

[Chaosmancer]

Not to be picky, but I am not sure I would use the term baseline. Baseline implies a starting point or minimum. Maybe it's the median of the class's primary stat. I know it seems picky, and I apologize if it does. But, it can't be a minimum when there are (were) many race/class combos that start at 15.
The range for people following the directions about placing their highest score in their primary stat is 15-17.

A median could be a fine word for it.

I'm using baseline because I think that is what the developers assumed when they had to run a character against challenges to see if they were balanced.

 

[Scribe]

I'm using baseline because I think that is what the developers assumed when they had to run a character against challenges to see if they were balanced.

In a world where.

Array
Buy
Roll
Racial ASI
Tasha's
Custom Lineage

Are all options, in that world, how can we even pretend 'balance' was or is, a concern?

 

[Chaosmancer]

The thing is that powergamers are usually clever people, for one, and it's not because they powergame that they can't roleplay or don't enjoy it. However, if roleplay was really the intent of you choosing a race/class combination for a 100 sessions campaign, would you really care about that +1 ?

Yes. Because I can want two things at the same time. A mechanically solid character who is on track with the other characters, and to roleplay a cool idea.

Just because I can do basic math and realize that 3>2 doesn't mean that I can't also enjoy telling stories. And in fact, I'm so good at telling stories that even if I really want to play a Tiefling Monk, I can still tell a great story with a Wood Elf Monk, and be meeting that baseline/median/whatever term works for you. And so... I end up going with the elf. Which is a more boring choice, but it offers me more and I can't justify the other choice because I'll struggle with being MAD anyways, let alone trying to be MAD and behind the curve.

 

[Maxperson]

The feat is a power option, but not the 16 ASI. And if a Tielfing isn't powergaming by playing a warlock or a bard with 16 Charisma, how are they power gaming by playing a Monk with a 16 Dexterity? How is one okay, but the other not? Just because is isn't standard?

Once you go to floating ASI, it's not the ASI itself that is the center of the optimization(ASI alone is still not powergaming). Yes, giving the monk +2 dex is still optimizing, but to someone who is a powergamer, the focus becomes the racial abilities. Since they can always have the optimal stat bonus, the race with the best other racial abilities that best fit the monk class(or whatever the class in question is), will be the race chosen.

Maybe it worked for you. For me, it didn't. I had to sit down the player and tell him that no, I didn't care who it was or how stupid he thought her plan was, berating another player for a week over her RP decision to heal the townsfolk first was unacceptable.

The entire group was fairly optimized. Homebrewed to be more powerful. He was the only one I had an issue with, and it wasn't because he was a allowed a choice of ASIs, it was because he was an ass and no one had sat him down and told him that other people get to play their own characters.

I play with people who actually do powergame, who do take it to the ends of the system seeking the most power. And most of them don't pull this sort of BS. You are conflating a symptom with the disease.

Yeah. I have a player that was like that. He liked to try to step in and say what the other PCs would do. I kept reminding him that they weren't his characters and the players of those PCs get to tell me what they do. He especially liked to try and do that when a player was doing something that he didn't think was the right move, even when it was good roleplaying. He doesn't do it anymore.

You know what I find funny about that? I'm not asking to be stronger than others. I'm asking to be equal. Wood Elf Cleric can get 16/16, why can't I play a Wood Elf Warlock who gets a 16 Charisma? I'm not going to be more powerful than if I picked a Tiefling instead, I might even be weaker to some optimizers.

This is true. My objection is not because of power. Even if it was more powerful, and it isn't when looking just at the stats, I wouldn't really care. My objection is because of what it does to the racial averages and how races are written up in the lore. For me races should have racial bonuses that correspond to their racial strengths. Dexterous elves and hardy dwarves, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

A player not wanting to randomize there stats is a not a problem player. They are someone who doesn't like random stats that can end up ruining their character.

I've seen bully DMs try and force people to roll, because they think it is "more fair" and I am a full advocate of telling those DMs to back off. This isn't an optional rule, and if you need to pull the "I'm the final authority and so you will obey me" card, then I'm very fine saying bye and leaving, because I don't need to deal with your hang-ups.

Every rule is an optional rule. In my game the only method is rolling. The others are gone. I've also set up the rolling method so that they can play the character they want, though. They get to choose two stats to roll 5d6-2L, two stats at 4d6-L, and two stats at 3d6. Then they can swap any two stats, so if they get really unlucky with the 5d6-2L, then swap that low number with their highest roll if they want. So far it hasn't failed to let the players play the PC that they want to make.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If you say, "did not actively discourage," you are saying that they passively discouraged. If you had really meant that they did not discourage, the word "active" would not have been present. You would have just said, "they did not discourage." Words mean things.

Yes, they do. And passive discouragement can be as simple as encouraging the opposite. And oh look, that's exactly what they did. Encouraged the opposite, which passively discourages the other path. No need for them to state it anywhere, it is just a natural consequence.

Armored wizards are against type. They encouraged armored wizards, including dwarven ones, buy allowing wizards to cast in everything up to and including plate mail.

Uh huh, but they didn't do it to actively encourage dwarven wizards. It was at best an afterthought.

No, it absolutely is not. It's balanced around ALL races, not humans. And so okay, since you seem to think that because I'm using humans to compare elves to that they designed the game around humans for me, I'll switch it up. Elves are more dexterous on average than dwarves! Elves are more dexterous on average than orcs! I can keep going, but I'm sure you get the point. It's not about humans. It's about game balance as a whole, which means all races.

It would have been stupid for them to balance the game around any one race and then after they were done, created the other races around the first race. Instead they would have just set baseline math and created every race, including humans, around that baseline.

And lo and behold, what number does every race including humans get in their prime stat by level 1? A 16 or a 17.

The only way to get a 15 is to play against type. Something they certainly weren't encouraging people to do. Again, I'm not using the term to mean "the minimum viable number" or anything like that. Just the expected starting line. And that's a 16.

They don't say that. At face value, if I make an elven rogue with the array and put a 15 into charisma and a 13 into dex, with the +2 dex is my highest score. They didn't say, "You can make a rogue quickly by following these suggestions. First, you should make your Dexterity the highest possible number you can achieve." They are not assuming that you will choose a dex race when making that statement. 15 is the highest(unless you roll) that you can place.

Of course they are assuming you will take either a dex race or a human. And secondly, you immediately went against the guideline by putting your 15 in Charisma, the 15 is your highest, your highest score should be your dexterity.

And look at who all can get this 16 in the PHB. Human, Elf, Gnome (forest gnome), Halfling, Half-Elf. All of whom are very much within type for rogues.

Who can't? Dwarf, Half-orc, Dragonborn and Tiefling. Three of whom are against type for rogues.

So, if they are encouraging you to play strong archetypes.... then you are going to be able to get that 16 dex.

No. If I end up with 2 15s and a 14, both 15s are my highest stat.

And now you're trying to tell me that they are dictating where you put your ASIs? Just no. they are not expecting an 18 by level 4 or 20 by level 8. Read ability score improvement. It says score or scores of your choice. There's not even a dex suggestion like you quote above there for you to rely on for this assumption of yours.

You are going to need to quote the designers or game saying straight out that they expect +3 for it to be anything other than your(and the others making the claim) assumption.

Dude... of course you are most likely to increase your dex, it is your primary stat. Yes, you are free to choose, but it doesn't take much to realize that a +1 to all your most important abilities is more valuable than a +1 to your least important abilities.

And to get those two 15's you had to put one of them in either Intelligence or Wisdom, because Halflings can boost Charisma, Constitution or Dexterity. The 13, your third highest score, went into dexterity. So, you actually did exactly what I said you would do. Because if you put the 14 in dex (your second highest) then you would have a 16 after the +2.

Like, it is kind of funny that you told me no, then did exactly what I said you would have to do to get those results.

So am I. If the game is easy with a 14(and it is), then a 14 is good. Not viable. Good.

The game isn't easy with a 16, so you are wrong.

I don't need to. Clerics are in type for dwarves. Dwarven clerics are a staple. Note, I'm talking about dwarves as a whole, because that's what the type encompasses. The type is not hill dwarf Clerics. It's dwarven clerics. Mountain dwarf clerics are as in type as hill dwarf clerics and mountain dwarves get no wisdom bonus. And done. You've been proven wrong.

So.. you immediately had to specify you were building a mountain dwarf, because if I went with a hill dwarf cleric, I could get the ASI...

So, dwarven clerics can get the 16 wisdom I said. So I'm still right. You are just trying to quibble that a subrace doesn't follow the typing exactly. And why would you play a Mountain Dwarf Cleric instead of a hill dwarf, you aren't gaining any benefits that are worth it.

Um. Yes it does exist. Heck, even in real life you can specialize in animal biology, human biology, etc. Because different species have different biologies. Elven biology would be different from dwarven biology which is different than gnome biology.

Animal biology covers multiple different species. No races. Human biology only covers humans. Both are still biology, they are just focused fields of study.

You do realize that all of us talking about that are talking about the floating ASI becoming the norm for the future, right?

Nobody is saying that it's a big bad horrible thing right now, since right now racial bonuses are still present with the floating ASI being optional.

And you do realize that there is no announcement of 6e right? That there is nothing more than fear mongering of what might happen in a version of the game that might never exist?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Could you clarify this please?

If anyone is obsessed with that +1 you keep talking about, it is an obsession with keeping that +1 from certain race/class combos.

We've got people accusing us of all sorts of things, all because we want to play a concept that isn't pre-approved to have their blessing of a 16. A halfling warlock with a 16 charisma? Obvious powergamer, obsessed with making the strongest character they can. Half-Elf warlock with a 16 charisma? Perfectly normal roleplayer, no problem whatsoever with this person.

But, you know what, maybe they picked a half-elf because it IS more powerful. And maybe they might have played the fun halfling concept that they had first, but when they were given the choice, they didn't see a reason not to play the half-elf, which is far stronger, fits with the class better, and moved on from there.

But, we must be powergamers and optimizers and rollplayers because we want that 16 charisma on the wrong race. It is just a constant parade of how terrible we must be, how we must be liars, how we should just admit is it all about power and we don't care about story, instead of recognizing that I can tell a story with both of those characters. Maybe even mostly the same story, so... I have no incentive to choose the first option, and all the reasons to pick the second, but trying to make those two options more equal just shows my true nature as a person who is obsessed with being better than everyone else.

It's just exhausting. And especially so since this thread started out on such a positive note, and here we are again, back in the trenches, defending ourselves and our integrity.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

That's fair. It is just exhausting to be back in this same argument, again.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think that reason is that previous iterations of the game were complex enough that the guides were helpful, and now there's a tradition.

I seriously wonder how many players read them, and suspect (although haven't tried to demonstrate) that it's a tiny fraction of the number of people on D&D Beyond, which is where we get our data about race:class choices.

I'll admit I read them, but mostly to check if I missed anything when building my character. Especially with spell selection, because there are so many spells and sometimes I just want to see what other people say about a certain spell.

And, a lot of the time, I laugh at the guides and how they aren't actually terribly good. Like, I've seen people advocate that daylight is a useful spell. Whereas I have explained to many players that it doesn't do what they think it does, and it probably isn't worth the slot.

And before I get pounced on, many people think that the Daylight spell creates... daylight. You know, like the name says. But I've had to explain that doesn't, it is just a really bright light for a 3rd level spell. It, for an example I learned the hard way, actually does nothing against a creature like a vampire. So, if I hear a player say "Oh, we are facing a vampire, I'll prepare daylight" I point this out to them, because I don't want them to waste their action and spell slot like I did.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I guess the next logical question is: how many of you come to the table without a character already in mind?

Pretty much never. Not only do I generally have about three characters rattling around in the bakc of my head, but as soon as I hear the pitch I start picturing a character for that story.

Only way you could get me at the table without a character in mind is if you surprised me with a sudden session 0, and even then, I've got ideas.