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

[Chaosmancer]

Then we have the two extremes. @Chaosmancer who argued that not liking Tasha's is saying that it should not be an option for anyone to use and that we racial bonus supporters are trying to take the Tasha's option away.

That is not my argument.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Right. So now you think the one with lower primary is just worse. Fair enough, I made the difference intentionally very stark to prove a point. It could for example be:
Str 10 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha 16
Str 10 Dex 16 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha 14

Or something else. The exact ratio isn't really the point. The point is that you need to get more of other stats for a point of primary stat before not maxing it becomes an actually something worth considering from optimisation perspective.


Yeah, classes that can run on two different scores make this tricky. The primary probably should be whichever is higher (or either, if they're the same, and then it doesn't really even matter, which it was, just the total cost.)


Quite possible. But I am really tired of "everyone must max their primary, that's the only way" and trying to brainstorm what it would actually take to incentivise more varied builds. It is not easy.

I can see your points but that is going to require significant work besides ratios. I would still say that while the difference is reduced in that new example the lower build would still be more effective overall.

I think the way to incentivise more varied builds is to get rid of half-feats and, potentially, the +1 / +1 ASI. I personally do not like having odd scores even if I can 'correct' them with a half-feat earlier, as that forces me to take a half-feat for sure for my character which I may not want for flavour or other reasons (perhaps I want a different full feat for build or roleplay purposes). It's not "optimal" but the optimal choice doesn't really provide interesting gameplay choices? A lot of the cool half-feats are good enough on their own, honestly, and some are too good with it, even with the restrictions they can put on scores.

With those gone, going odd doesn't make sense and people will now spend their points in different ways to either emphasis having two +3s, etc.

In general, honestly, I feel the +1 combined with point-buy (or event standard array) doesn't get discussed enough compared to the +2. I wonder if a good compromise in this ASI debate is to make the +2 a forced stat and make the +1 floating, to emphasis both the 'population' versus 'individuality' argument. I don't agree with the 'population' argument but I could live with this.

(Then again I live with fixed scores anyway, for fears, even with a GM who preferred Tasha's rules, for fears of being a "power-gamer" and for a lot of character concepts it's pretty easy to fenangle yourself into still powerful characters that aren't the most 'optimised' but work with subclasses. E.g., I have a Lizardborn bard character I would love to play at some point and sure, it would be nice if I could assign my scores to +2 Dex, +1 Charisma, but it's possible to live with a +1 Wisdom, a +2 to Charisma at the start and be more tanky (and maybe lean a little into Wisdom skills.))

(I need a lot of work as an actual role-player for improvisation purposes anyway.)

 

[LadyElect]

I think the way to incentivise more varied builds is to get rid of half-feats and, potentially, the +1 / +1 ASI. I personally do not like having odd scores even if I can 'correct' them with a half-feat earlier, as that forces me to take a half-feat for sure for my character which I may not want for flavour or other reasons (perhaps I want a different full feat for build or roleplay purposes). It's not "optimal" but the optimal choice doesn't really provide interesting gameplay choices? A lot of the cool half-feats are good enough on their own, honestly, and some are too good with it, even with the restrictions they can put on scores.

With those gone, going odd doesn't make sense and people will now spend their points in different ways to either emphasis having two +3s, etc.

This leans more toward a larger redesign, but what about taking some number of steps like:

1. Modify point buy table to remove odd purchase options but retain point pool (essentially just limits current array possibilities).
2. Swap racial ASI +2/+1 to just the +2 primary (or floating)
3. Eliminate +1/+1 ASI option, combine half-feat +1 bonuses with previous +1 racial ASI to provide specific +2 and feat here instead

The trajectory remains somewhat similar though likely requires tweaking elsewhere. And then, removing the instances of odd ability score can of couse be simplified down into an only ability modifier style for simplicity's sake if desired, but that's a whole separate battle against tradition.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I beg your forgiveness for discussing a topic in a discussion. That was my mistake for thinking this was a forum for talking about things, especially when I was agreeing with you that it isn't powergaming.

Cut the snark, you know what I meant. I'm not saying you can't discuss things, but why bother discussing this?

Right now powergamers focus on racial ASIs. If Racial ASIs float then they will focus on Racial Abilities.... okay? Who cares? They already have a focus, if that focus shifts it shifts, but unless you are trying to protect the powergamers habitat I don't see what the point of discussing the fact that they will shift focus is. I don't care if Bobby makes his character focusing on ASIs, on racial abilities or on length of ears. It makes no difference to me. What does make a difference is how I can make my character.

And again, I beg your forgiveness for agreeing with you and posting an example of a similar player. I won't do it again.

Again, cut the snark. If we are in agreement I don't see the need for you to be so hostile.

The DM sets the rules for everyone, including the players. The players don't get to decide which rules are in or out, even ones dealing with PCs. And in fact the PHB backs me up on this.

"Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game."

I don't care. If you made a houserule that rogues don't exist unless the player pays you I wouldn't say you are in your rights to do that either.

There is no value in preventing someone from using the standard array. The only reason you seem to do it is because you like rolling. That isn't a good reason to force others to roll if they don't want to.

No power trip. I just hate cookie cutter characters and literally every PC with an array starting with 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 is very cookie cutter.

Your preference is noted, and ignored. I don't care if you hate cookie cutter characters, it isn't your character to decide anything about anyways.

Okay, but so what. Lack of encouragement does not equate to discouragement. A negative to a stat is discouragement.

And we circle right back to the beginning. A lack of encouragement on one end, and encouragement on the other means that you are going to see more people do the second. That is the entire point of encouraging, to increase the likelihood of that outcome.

They encouraged certain combos, and therefore those combos became far more likely, to the point where they were the standard.

Such use was a special ability of the class/prestige class. Or else they suffered the penalty as some of my wizards did.

Having a special ability doesn't make them a non-archetype. Wizards have a special ability to write down spells, that doesn't mean that they aren't archetypical.

No you didn't. You showed that the highest stat is recommended to be in the prime stat for the class. You did not show that the highest number should be placed there. What I showed matched their suggestion. The highest stat(15) was in fact in the prime spot.

The highest number is the highest stat. Again, I've played with plenty of new players, none of them took this road. No one ever point their highest number in their third most important stat, then made their third highest number their muost important stat so that those two met. The only reason for doing this is to try and prove that the standard is a 15 instead of a 16.

I've done it and seen others do it. It's not nearly as common, but it does happen and it fits the baseline of the game.

Since I'm talking about the most common way it is down, and the most common way being the baseline, then if it is "not nearly as common" then it is clearly not what the baseline is.

You said it wasn't easy for you. I've done it with multiple DMs and it is easy for me.

And that doesn't make you a superior gamer. For all you know, it could have been easy for you because your DMs took it easy on you. Your insistence that your perspective is uniquely suited to tell me what is and isn't easy is incredibly frustrating. Especially coming from someone who should absolutely know that such things are nowhere near universal, let alone universal in something as complex as an RPG.

Clerics are in type for ALL dwarves. And you're going to need to show hard evidence that most games don't have mountain dwarves, because outside of Athas I haven't seen one.

The One Ring.
Shadowrun.
Warcraft.

Pretty sure you've seen all three of those. When talking about archetypes, you can't limit yourself to just DnD. Besides, even the most forgiving view is that half of all dwarves can get 16 wisdom, since there were only two options. And only half of them can get 16 Strength. Almost like there is a divide between dwarves as fighter, and dwarves as cleric.

Any alien coming to earth is going to match human biology. Got it. There can't be any differences because you said so.

Since Biology covers more than just humans, you are being purposefully dense. After all, the equivalent of your claim is that you can't calculus to solve a problem of a rocketship, because it is used for baseballs. The field of biology covers everything from virus's to molds that stretch multiple square miles. And at no point will you find anyone talking about "racial biology" who is worth listening to.

Good thing nobody has been arguing that. They have said that it's only a matter of time until Tasha's becomes the default for D&D, but nobody has said it's a matter of time until the game is ruined and/or the apocalypse will come.

Lot of people have claimed that Tasha's as the default is the ruination of the game. If you don't believe me just go back and reread this thread. Or any of the dozen others.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Oh, now I'm starting to understand the point of this exercise.

I agree that it's unfortunate that every Warlock maximizes Charisma, and every Rogue maximizes Dexterity, etc.

As I said upthread, I'd love it if in D&D a fighter could take any combination of Strength, Dex, and Int, and as long as the bonuses totalled the same, the fighter would be approximately equally effective. That is, Str +6, Dex +2, Int -3 would have a 50% chance of beating Str +2, Dex +0, Int +3. Or any other combination you could think of. And in my dream world each stat would contribute in different ways, both offensive and defensively. So maybe Str does more raw damage, Dex is more likely to hit, and Int is more likely to crit. (Note that I don't think this can actually work with D&D mechanics.)

(Another variant might have some sort of rock-paper-scissors thing going on.)

If that were the case then we wouldn't be having this discussion: people would naturally try lots of different stats.

But D&D doesn't work that way, and given what we have I personally don't think it's worth any energy trying to get people to not max out their primary attribute.

Think of it this way: if one player at a table didn't put their highest score in their primary attribute (but didn't totally dump it, either) and you were observing but couldn't see the dice and didn't know ACs and saving throws, do you think you could tell which player it was? I don't think so. I don't think it would change playstyle in a noticeable way, and statistically you'd need track a lot of results to figure out who was only +2. The only real way to figure it out would require expertise in the game rules and paying careful attention; based on number of known spells or abilities that get used (attribute modifier) times per day you might eventually find a clue. But, yeah, basically it's invisible to everybody but the player. So why should it bother anybody if players tend to take the same "cookie cutter" attribute distributions?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Lot of people have claimed that Tasha's as the default is the ruination of the game. If you don't believe me just go back and reread this thread. Or any of the dozen others.

I think Scribe is one muscular halfling away from playing Pathfinder.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't care. If you made a houserule that rogues don't exist unless the player pays you I wouldn't say you are in your rights to do that either.

You'd be wrong. The DM has the right to add, remove or change every single rule in the game. Period. The game, not you, gives the DM that right and tells the player to check with the DM to see if any rules have been changed.

Your preference is noted, and ignored. I don't care if you hate cookie cutter characters, it isn't your character to decide anything about anyways.

I'm not deciding anything about the character. I'm setting the rules for character creation which is within my right as the DM. Period.

The highest number is the highest stat. Again, I've played with plenty of new players, none of them took this road. No one ever point their highest number in their third most important stat, then made their third highest number their muost important stat so that those two met. The only reason for doing this is to try and prove that the standard is a 15 instead of a 16.

No. What it says is "highest stat", not "highest placed stat before racial bonuses are applied." You don't get to change the meaning.

Since I'm talking about the most common way it is down, and the most common way being the baseline, then if it is "not nearly as common" then it is clearly not what the baseline is.

It doesn't work that way. The designers, not the players, determine the baseline. If the players most commonly put 10's in the main stat, that wouldn't be baseline, either.

The One Ring.
Shadowrun.
Warcraft.

As long as we're naming games that don't have anything to do with a conversation about D&D dwarves...

Settlers of Catan.
Terraforming Mars.
Marvel Superheroes.

Pretty sure you've seen all three of those. When talking about archetypes, you can't limit yourself to just DnD.

Yes I can. This is about D&D archetypes. Archetypes change depending on the game and that game's lore.

 

[Yaarel]

@ReshiIRE, @LadyElect

I would prefer even scores too.

Regarding feats, all feats can be divided into feats and traits. A trait is half a feat. So pick one feat or two traits.

In other words, all of the feats that grant a score +1 no longer do, and instead become traits.

Pick two traits, or one feat, or a score +2.

 

[LadyElect]

Regarding feats, all feats can be divided into feats and traits. A trait is half a feat. So pick one feat or two traits.

This is probably a better balance without having to go in and begin turning dials on the feats as well.

 

[clearstream]

@ReshiIRE, @LadyElect

I would prefer even scores too.

Regarding feats, all feats can be divided into feats and traits. A trait is half a feat. So pick one feat or two traits.

In other words, all of the feats that grant a score +1 no longer do, and instead become traits.

Pick two traits, or one feat, or a score +2.

./returns to thread and discovers odd-numbered scores are on the chopping block.