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

[Scribe]

Edit: How the heck does blue lose 1? Every fixed ASI is able to be copied by floating ASIs, so if there were 8 blue before, there should be 8 blue after.

I think I found it, Bugbear. /shrug

 

[clearstream]

Yep. And being the underdog can be fun. There are work around so that an "against type" character will prove the world wrong. A halfling barbarian is against type. Yet, we have had one and it was a terror to behold.

Playing against type argues for individual differences. There appears to be a thesis that a player is most successfully playing against type when they avoid being mechanically top-notch in their chosen career. In fantasy stories, the more typical case is that the character going against type can do so - brilliantly - because they are mechanically top-notch... at something other than whatever was the expected norm for them.

 

[clearstream]

Some races are already like this.

Consider the Lizarfolk. Without Floating ASI they have a +2 to Con and a +1 to Wisdom. But they benefit from having high Dex thanks to Natural Armour, but they also benefit from having a high Strength and Constitution to benefit from Bite and Hungry Jaws.

They make pretty good close-range / tank Clerics thanks to their ASIs and can operate well without armour (since Natural Armor works with Shields...), but they would actually be really fascinating Barbarians or Monks without floating ASIs to try to work most of their features together (unfortunately Bite doesn't work with Rages for Barbarians, I'm not sure how it'd interact with for Clerics, and Hungry Jaws can only be used once per short or long rest - really wish that was a profiency based feature!)

The point I would make though, with Lizardborn, is that it's pretty difficult to use all their features together, and one feature (Natural Armour) is so worth investing in (with the features I've not mentioned here being not based on any ability scores).

I already love Lizardborn because... I love lizards and lizard people, and I have a DM with great lore for them... but seeing their features in 5e makes them pretty exciting.

I think the mechanics you are referencing from VGtM are these. (I agree that it is a good example of a race with contradictory features.)

Ability Score Increase. Your Constitution score increase by 2, and your Wisdom score increases by 1.
Bite. Your fanged maw is a natural weapon, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with it, you deal piercing damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.
Cunning Artisan. As part of a short rest, you can harvest bone and hide from a slain beast, construct, dragon, monstrosity, or plant creature of size Small or larger to create one of the following items: a shield, a club, a javelin, or 1d4 darts or blowgun needles. To use this trait, you need a blade, such as a dagger, or appropriate artisan's tools, such as leatherworker's tools.
Hold Breath. You can hold your breath for up to 15 minutes at a time.
Hunter's Lore. You gain proficiency with two of the following skills of your choice: Animal Handling, Nature, Perception, Stealth, and Survival.
Natural Armor. You have tough, scaly skin. When you aren't wearing armor, your AC is 13 + your Dexterity modifier. You can use your natural armor to determine your AC if the armor you wear would leave you with a lower AC. A shield's benefits apply as normal while you use your natural armor.
Hungry Jaws. In battle, you can throw yourself into a vicious feeding frenzy. As a bonus action, you can make a special attack with your bite. If the attack hits, it deals its normal damage, and you gain temporary hit points (minimum of 1) equal to your Constitution modifier, and you can't use this trait again until you finish a short or long rest.

As you say, it's very mixed. Their traits give them CON and WIS, and mechanically call upon every ability bar CHA (albeit INT only matters to Nature, and thus only if you choose that skill.) The physical abilities are their core, of course. (What makes you think Bite doesn't work with Rage? It's a melee attack that uses STR.)

Lizardfolk really are an interesting example for the discussion here. Off the top of my head -

• In the early discussion some posters felt fixed ASIs represented demographic truths. It's interesting to contemplate the demographic truths of a race whose ASIs do not connect with its natural traits. It's almost like we need to imagine that lizardfolk have changed over time so that their lore (their skill choices) have mattered more than their physical capabilities.
• If we go along with the idea of demographic truths, then lizardfolk ought to have over-representation in the classes that suit them. CON and WIS speak to barbarians, clerics, monks and rangers. CON is kind of a secondary for every class, and WIS useful to most, but those four might be expected to land well albeit monks wouldn't benefit from bite, and barbarians probably prefer their own AC calculation given their CON might end up better than +3. The skills are the barbarian list minus Athletics and Intimidation.
• So perhaps we land on a people who are wise - naturally adept with clerical magics - and hearty. I bet they're long-lived, with healing magics and that CON increase!

Age. Lizardfolk reach maturity around age 14 and rarely live longer than 60 years.
Alignment. Most lizardfolk are neutral. They see the world as a place of predators and prey, where life and death are natural processes. They wish only to survive, and prefer to leave other creatures to their own devices.

Ah, back to primitivism. Of course their lives are short and brutal - predators and prey. We're really going against type here. I guess that is a note I would make for the going-against-type crew: it's a nice idea. So how would floating ASIs change that? Funnily enough, the example in TCoE is literally that of a lizardfolk - +2 CON, +1 WIS. They suggest INT +2, CHA +1. Now that really would be going against type.

 

[ReshiIRE]

(What makes you think Bite doesn't work with Rage? It's a melee attack that uses STR.)

Oh. I... forgot that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks... because... why would your arms count as weapons...

Plain language strikes again .-.

They also have a Swim Speed. They're really good for any campaigns involving regular water or sea travel.

I agree with the rest of your post though. I do feel that Lizardfolk would probably get reworked if they were put in a book outside of VGTM (since the races in that book are a bit of a mess), since they have so mawny features.

 

[Lyxen]

But gaining power is.

Only for powergamers. Other play by the intent of the devs: "The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery." and "You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama. You create silly in-jokes that make you laugh years later. The dice will be cruel to you, but you will soldier on. Your collective creativity will build stories that you will tell again and again, ranging from the utterly absurd to the stuff of legend."

One is not more right than the other, but if you think that the intent of the game is gaining power, without any insult or judgment, you are a powergamer.

 

[Helldritch]

Playing against type argues for individual differences. There appears to be a thesis that a player is most successfully playing against type when they avoid being mechanically top-notch in their chosen career. In fantasy stories, the more typical case is that the character going against type can do so - brilliantly - because they are mechanically top-notch... at something other than whatever was the expected norm for them.

DIfferent choice yes. But not different abilities given. Fixed ASI do that. Floating ASI do not. Fixed ASI creates expectations. It is by playing against those expectations (such as our halfling barb) that you can achieve to be an underdog and thus surprise your opponents. This can almost litterally be only done through RP. Floating ASI do not create expectations so foes should not have them.

 

[Lyxen]

Good for you. Now, can you stop accusing people who might seek advice in a very complicated game to being toxic to the game because you don't like the advice? Can you stop accusing people who like an option of being horrid bullies because you think they are going to use that option in a way you disapprove of?

I'm sorry, but you are the one mixing everything here. My point, demonstrated before, is that people who absolutely need a +1 to a stat to claim to be able to explore class/races that they could not before are doing this purely for the power of the Floating ASIs, and are therefore powergamers.

After that, it so happens that it's not the style of play that we prefer at our tables, as we have seen the detrimental consequences of that, in particular about the competition that it introduces at the table, and the power gap with more roleplay/story/casual players.

And on top of that, there are cases of jerks, which I have encountered a lot through my long roleplaying experience, with a lot of them being around powergaming/ruleslawyering.

You can draw the conclusions that you want from this, but obviously, there are as many types and degrees of powergaming as it is of extreme roleplaying, and neither is inherently more annoying than the other.

I'm not asking you to let it in at your table, but you have done nothing but throw accusations at us, without any reasoning. Roll it back.

What accusations exactly ?

No, it isn't. No more than any other legal option in the game.

But it is. Allowing feats is an option that no build can live without, and which is purely technical. Allowing multiclassing can be nice for roleplaying, but is mostly used by powergamers to create builds with level dip.

See below about the power gap between characters, are you advocating that it's a good thing ?

Because we can play very well without these options, completely within the spirit of the game, and limiting the power gap because it's inherently a BAD thing in our opinion.

And your issue is with toxic players, which has nothing to do with the rules, and everything to do with toxic people.

Unfortunately no, there is the problem of temptation. If you remove it from the equation, not only will the jerks have less opportunity to be so, but people who are not jerks will be less tempted to behave like it. This is why, in society, we have laws.

You absolutely did that.

Absolutely not.

Firstly, you said that you "like" reminding them it is an option. You do it because you enjoy it, by your own admission. Since you follow that up with how it infuriates them, you are clearly expecting to needle them, and like doing so. Maybe I'm reading too deeply into that, but combining it with your venom towards any form of optimization I fear it is a likely conclusion.

I do it because people advocating for Floating ASIs are behaving like it's absolutely part of the game,and you are basically a jerk for not seeing that ie has to be, that it's the only way to combat racism and by implication that you are a racist if you do not put them in place. Even in this relatively tame thread, it has been expressed that way.

Because I don't believe any of the above, I like reminding people that it's only an option and that on any official site, the Racial ASIs are the rule.

Secondly, you said that your table discussed it and "being reasonable people who understand the benefits of limiting the power gap" they agreed not to use the rule. This immediately sets up anyone who disagrees with you as either a) unreasonable or b) lacking understanding. It is a neat little rhetorical trick, but it is again, inappropriate. Reasonable people can disagree. People who understand the game can see different sides, and your insistence that everything and anything is powergaming and toxic, makes it hard to have any discussion with you about those reasonable differences, because you refuse to see anything that disagrees with you as unreasonable. That we are liars who will always seek to overshadow our peers and make our games worse, unlike you whom is enlightened.

Again, roll back the rhetoric. Stop assuming negatives about people. It is doing nothing but making a discussion harder to have.

You are the one rolling out a huge rethoric here, unless you believe that it's not reasonable to limit the power gap ?

So? Am I somehow wrong because I wasn't compelled to start myself off in a character whom I didn't think would be satisfying to play?

Satisfying because more powerful => powergamer.

I did it once, a Gnome Cleric, started with a 14 Wisdom. Character struggled every inch of the game to accomplish what I knew I could do in combat.

Because of a lacking +1 ? Considering the range of a d20 ? It's your perception, because of the above.

I loved the story, but the story was hampered by the mechanics. And I was never confident enough to try it again. Instead I just played the options I knew weren't hampered and told those stories instead. Now I have the option to go back and tell stories I want to tell, without worrying about it.

the story of a +1, that practically affected you 5% of the time when using your primary attribute, fantastic.

Do you feel like I'm wrong to do so?

I feel like you make a mountain of nothing, and for the wrong reasons.

Do you feel like I'm bad for the game because I'm happy to have options that match my preference? Why should it matter if I want to play a Goliath Barbarian or a Elf Barbarian, and have the same stats. I could have by rolling, you realize that, right? I could have rolled stats and been able to do it, but my desire to play one of those characters and the times I rolled good stats never aligned. And now, I can do it anyways. Why am I wrong and bad for doing so?

You are the one saying that it's wrong and bad, whereas I never said anything of the kind. I only said that because it's only about the technical power of the character, it's powergaming to make the choices that you made for power only.

You do. You've made multiple claims that powergamers look down on others, that they belittle others, that they only follow the guides and don't think for themselves, and on and on and on. You have never had a single positive thing to say about them, other than "and of course I don't judge them for it".Which rings a bit hollow.

I never said that all powergamers are that bad. On the contrary, I said that there are many shades of them, but that unfortunately I have met too many that behaved badly to leave the door open to that, and that I prefer to close the power gap to avoid drift whenever I can.

And didn't you yourself say that your group sees the benefits of "reducing the power gap"? Multiple people have gone to these guides you decry and pointed out that with Tasha's... the power gap has been reduced. The middle has grown, a lot of ideas are in a far better place, and able to compete with the top spots. I'm not talking about crutches, I'm talking about leveling the field... which is what you are for right? But you refuse to accept it because you can't see it as anything other than powergaming.

Only it has not reduced the gap, not only did it create more powerful options besides the existing ones, but again, to exploit them (and the previous ones), you need to be a powergamer. Casual/roleplaying/storytelling will not care, and the power gap is actually extended by allowing powergamers more options to powergame further. Your claim is baseless.

So what, I should play anything with no concern for the mechanics? Make a bard who has a -1 to all charisma checks, invest in atheltics and animal handling, and play them like a face relying on Persuasion and deception? Do you do that? Do you put your lowest possible score in your prime attribute? Or are you obsessed with POWER and make sure that you have your highest score there?

No one asks you do to a stupid and powerless character either. But it's a totally different matter. As long as you are reasonably effective, which all race/class combination can be without powergaming if you follow the simple recommendations from the book or your DM.

Did you hafling warlock start with a 10 Charisma? A 7? Or was it closer to a 15?

It was a 15 IIRC, because while I don't go out of the way to create a stupid character more than I go out of my way just to play the specific race that only gives me the highest bonus, despite the fact that it fits less well in the campaign.

I'm not fooling myself. I know what I want, I know why I want it, and I know that I love the stories of my characters. You can look down on me and mock me for caring about that +1, you can say that I'm playing it wrong and try and force me to change... but that's on you. I'm being honest with you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now just be honest with yourself and admit that you also like playing a powerful character for whatever reason even if it's only personal preference. It's OK, I've been there, and there is nothing wrong or bad with it, especially if you admit it.

And yet, it has made a difference. Repeatedly. You'll tell me I'm wrong, that I can't possibly have noticed myself and a dragonborn cleric player who both started with a +2 Wisdom being noticeably underpowered.

And this might just be more because of the rest of the power gap than about that stat. If the other characters, in addition to the increase stats, also had optimised builds, and were played to type, then I agree that too much of a power gap is bad, which is why it's reasonable to reduce it,not by touching your two characters who I'm sure where fine, but by preventing others to twist the system around their whims.

Moreover, if you were not the only one noticing the power gap, the DM should have done something about it, seeing that that two characters were struggling. There are countless ways for a DM to do it, but it's better to do it at character creation because it sets expectations right, which is why limiting powergaming options is better.

Everyone tells me I'm wrong. But no one else was sitting at those tables, so I'm going to continue pointing out that those two characters struggled more than any other clerics I have ever seen. Seven years of running 5e, a cleric in nearly every single party, and the only two who felt weaker than normal, even with the guy who always missed Guiding Bolt, were the ones with a +2.

And, a secondary point, on why I struggle. Because it isn't worth it. Going against the grain and being behind the curve for my characters entire career isn't worth playing one story over the other. But, if I truly only cared about those +1's? If I only cared about POWER and not RP? Then why would I be so happy to have this option? This is it, this lets me do what I want to do. I don't have to decide between my first story and the my second story anymore, I can just go with the first.

The story of a +1 ? You have lost me there.

No. Some DMs don't adjust their encounters for the players. That isn't a problem, that is a style choice.

And if the players don't enjoy the game because of that, it's a bad choice.

So, we are all powergamers because I've got friends who like playing Tiefling Warlocks, Dwarf Fighters and Humans? And it isn't a "competition", we aren't comparing our DPS between fights.

But you are comparing effectiveness and suffering from it...

But when one person is noticeably weaker than the others, especially when that person is someone like me who is generally the most experienced player at the table, you feel bad. You feel like you let them down, because you were selfish about what you wanted instead of what was better for the group.

So what is better for the group is power ? It's not about having a cleric that buffs, heals, and pulls comrades out of death's grasp every other fight ? I'm lost there.

Maybe that's just me, but I've seen other people get frustrated that they feel like they aren't pulling an equal share. It isn't about overshadowing them, it is about not being a burden to them. And you can tell that person all day long that no one else cares, but it isn't about the other people caring, it is about them caring. And you can't tell someone to stop caring about something. Well, you can, but it pretty much never works. (Yes, I understand the irony everyone)

Equal share of what exactly ? Damage done ?

So why are you telling me that only "real players" would play a character who isn't optimized? Why are you looking down on me for not wanting my Elf Warlock to have a 15 charisma?

I'm looking down on absolutely no-one. I'm just telling you that, by the spirit of the game, this should not matter, but if it is what you enjoy, fine, go with it, just be conscious of the reasons, that's all.

There are so many people in this thread telling me I'm wrong for not just doing things the way they would do them. But, I've never argued against someone having the choice to play with a 15. I've never argued that they are wrong to do so. I've argued against absurd claims about "what we really want" or about how "unrealistic" it is. But I have never once told someone that they shouldn't play the character they want to play. Meanwhile, that is all I'm being told. That I'm wrong, that I always could have played their way, and so it is my fault for not wanting to.

Again, I don't think anyone is telling you this. On the contrary, I'm telling you that your previous character would have been extremely welcome at our tables, and that we would have taken steps, either at character creation or during the game to make sure that you don't feel like you were struggling for years because honestly, that is no way to game and to enjoy it.

But you have repeatedly said that powergamers would just blindly follow the guides.

No, this is a sophism, I said that people who blindly follow the guides because of the power reasons are very probably powergamers, which is completely different.

So, here we are.

You can be a powergamer with the guides, you can be a powergamer without the guides. You can be a non-powergamer without the guides, and you can be a non-powergamering with the guides.

You can, but if you go to the guides to look at powerful options (which is what I've seen in every forum or real life discussion about them), then you are a powergamer.

So, for the purposes of this discussion, the guides are a moot point. They prove nothing.

They prove, in particular by the discussions around them, that there are many people interested by powergaming, and by the same token, they allow DMs who care about the power gap to see where there are holes that should be plugged to avoid it at their table, because it's a bad thing that causes people like you to be miserable for years of playing their character.

I'm glad that you've never had a failed game. I've listened to plenty of my friends who said that the DM refused to budge on this, but they gave him a chance... and then three weeks later they are quitting in disgust because the DM can't relax their grip on their characters.

No one said DMs are perfect, however, it's also not a good idea to start an arms race "behind his back" (or using options hidden in plain sight) to compete in power with other characters.

There is nothing wrong with using the Standard Array. There is no reason to deny people from using it, except you don't like it. And, while the players should listen to the DM with an open mind, that street goes both ways, and you should listen to the players with the same, instead of dismissing them out of hand.

You are clearly not responding to me here.

You want respect? Earn it. The title of DM earns you nothing.

Yes it does. The DM has, at the very least, prepared the campaign and is going to run it. That is a lot more than most players are doing. So I will respect the DM for his work, at the very least.

It allows for a character with up to a 17 and as low as an 8. How is that not larger than life with heroic stats high and low? Do all your characters need to have an 18 and a 5 to be considered at your table? You might find it bland, but again... it isn't your character. Who cares if you think it is bland, MR. DM? You aren't the one who has to run it.

And again, did I advocate not allowing it ? No, contrary to some powergaming options, it's never been refused, it's the PLAYERS who don't want to use itm because they find it bland.

Moreover, if the DM wants to run a heroic campaign, and he wants characters that look heroic even on paper, it's his absolute right to determine everything he wants during character creation. If players don't like it, their can be a discussion, and if they walk aways, too bad for everyone. But the player has not right to impose anything.

You are luckier than you know. I've had plenty of bad DMs.

I'm not sure. None of my friends and fellow players (and I've had hundreds) have ever complained about a really bad DM. As you say, some made mistakes, for various reasons, but it's just a game amongst friends, and can be discussed between adults, or even with children (I've ran game for tons of them).

As long as no one's serious about it, or take it as a competition, it's solvable.

I had a DM who forced my character to play "throw a turd at a turd" with an NPC, so he could laugh at my character being in such a situation.

I'm sorry for you obviously, I'm jsut wondering how you could get so many bad experiences in such a comparatively short time.

I've had bad players too. And I've had DMs who made major misteps, but were new and I forgive them for it, but I've only been seriously gaming for about 10 years, and I've had plenty of horror stories, and heard many many more.

My DM is not more clever than me.

Possibly not, but he has been doing work for you. Respect this at the very least. Not respecting work is also one way to annoy people. And one of the worst case (and I'm not saying it's your case at all) is the entitled player. These deserve no respect at all.

They are dude running a game. They made choices thinking it might be fun, but that doesn't mean it was fun. And if you aren't willing to listen to criticism or change course, then I have better things to do than to waste my time.

Again, you want respect? Earn it. Being a DM doesn't earn you respect. I know, I'm a DM.

Then we have different opinions. I respect my DMs on principle, and always thank them for running the games. Always, because I respect what they have done to prepare and run the game. It's much more difficult than being a player and just sitting at the table to be entertained. So the level of respect due is obviously not the same.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Then don't. Built around the fixed ASI as she did. Prove the world that dwarves can be great wizard. But work with their limitations.

Why do we want to declare that dwarves are of limited intelligence, or have a hard time learning magic? That does nothing for the story of dwarves that I'm interested in at least.

Also, why am I proving anything to the world? I didn't make this character to make some sweeping social justice statement about achievement. I made them to play a dwarf who was a wizard. I don't need to prove anything to "the world" or the DM.

Which would be quite surprising and would require gimping a character. So one in a thousand characters? Maybe even more? Because why use floating ASI if it is not to use them optimally? You see the full contradiction that floating ASI bring here. Not my contradiction. But the ones the floating ASI bring.

That isn't a contradiction, that is the point. With fixed ASI you are already "gimping" the character if you don't play towards type. Floating ASI allows you to avoid that.

BUT posters like yourself and other then decry that you would no longer be able to make statements and prove to the world that it is possible to play the character concept you want, because you would be able to optimize. And, of course, you would optimize. But, it is always possible to play that concept if you really wanted to. If it was so valuable to you to do so.

Again, take the quote in its context, not out of it. With fixed ASI, you have to work around a race weaknesses to make a good character.

Don't you have to do this anyways? I mean, every character has weaknesses, unless you roll really really good. So, your Wood Elf Monk whose ASI's perfectly align with what they need still has a weakness that you need to work around. Heck, most interesting weaknesses don't come from being behind the power curve.

With floating ASI, not so. So not using floating ASI optimaly would essentially be gimping a character. This might be a concept, but it would minimally require my approval at my table (as you are putting the characters of the other players at risks) and I might not accept it. If you would insist on bringing such a character without approval, bye bye. The possibility that someone might eventually in an hypothetical situation propose such a gimped character does not invalidate the premise that ASI are solely for optimizing.

So wait. Fixed ASIs allow you to bring a gimped character, but you need DM approval to do so? And putting my scores whereever I please on my character also needs DM approval?

I'm sorry, I'll hand you back your character sheet and go grab my own, I didn't realize I had started writing on the DM's Character Sheet. Thought it was the Player's Character Sheet, and I can place my scores how I please.

The guides are there nonetheless. When everyone comes to the same conclusion that such and such are the absolute best and that this absolute best goes against lore, expectations, tradition and logic, then the rule is a bad one.

Then all the rules are bad. Have been for years, because optimizers have figured out the absolute best this and that since about a year into the game.

This isn't a bad rule because optimizers exist and have opinions. Again, you wouldn't ban whips just because every optimizer guide suddely found out they are the best weapon in the game, would you?

 

[Lyxen]

Forgot something about "Bad DMs", I'm not discounting your personal tales, but honestly it should have been a one-off with every single one of them, with no one playing with them ever again.

Apart from that, there is also a lot of hearsay and horror stories that I suspect are just made up, without forgetting all the cases that I've seen of forums and people complaining about "Bad DMs" for not allowing their shenanigans, ruleslawyering, powergaming, or simply for not following the holy "RAW". In all these cases, by default, and until proven otherwise, I'm on the DM's side as, once more, he has prepared and run the game. And I can also say that, in the huge majority of the cases that I've seen on forums, after hearing what happened, I don't think the fault lay with the DM but with an entitled player.

Again, your experience may be different, I'm just telling you mine.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This one has me scratching my head.

So, let me get this straight....some people think it's fun to build a sub-optimal character and try to make it work. But that fun is spoiled if they are voluntarily building a sub-optimal character? That is, it's only fun if there's no choice in the matter?

Not sure I buy that argument.

Yeah, this has come up multiple times. And I still don't get it. It only works if they have no choice in the matter and then can "prove to the world" that the concept works anyways. I think it has to be a holdover of "skilled play" personally.