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

[Chaosmancer]

Why on earth would monsters and foes stop having expectations? It is a natural and logical thing that intelligent creatures will make judgments made on the history and habits of the known races. Halflings are poor fighters, dwarves are bad wizards, elves... are elves and bards should all be staked through the heart ( but that is an other topic.)

This is what fixed ASI make for the players. A chance to metagame by playing the unexpected. Because at some point, the stereotypes are reinforced by the racial ASI and thus monsters and foes will have the same expectations.

You jest with my RP, but I do RP monsters and foes with their basic interpretations and alignments. And I sometimes surprise my players with.... an unexpected build for a monsters. "But (insert any foe) are not supposed to that!" is a sentence I often hear at my table. Because even if the vast majority of my villainous creatures are in the MM, I can work with my players expectations too. This is exactly what role playing is about.

Now with generic RPG where you build what you want, there are no particular expectations as the lore does not provide any. GURPS, to mention one, is a really good system but it is generic and every race can do anything equally well. So intelligent foes will behave differently with no special expectations because there aren't any to begin with. D&D I unique in that it's lore is (so far) supported by mechanical rules (racial ASI and powers/skills) that many other non D$D related RPGs do not have.

Instead of taking one aspect of a game or post, try to look at it in its totality. This will let you understand a lot more my point of view as I do not focus only on one part of the game but to all its related part. Racial lore is as much important as the mechanical aspects of it that reinforced each other. Thus, this creates expectations and assumptions in both players and monsters about what the general adventurer of each race can usually do.

A very long post to say a whole lot of not much.

Every Mountain Dwarf can wear armor and use a hammer. As a commoner, that would mean they are swinging a normal blow that has a +1 to hit and deals 1d8+1 damage.

So your monster sees a dwarf in armor and with a hammer, then they run forward, and swing that hammer so it crashes in to the monsters friend with a boom of thunder that cracks their spine and sends them lifeless into the dirt. They made that attack with a +7 and dealt 2d8+4 damage. That is massively better than any dwarf they have ever seen before. Why don't they react with shock and surprise? Dwarves can't do this, dwarves attack at +1 and a deal 1d8+1 damage.


Or maybe they've seen an adventuring dwarf before, so they could tell me exactly what class that dwarf is and what abilities they were using and how they got them?

Halflings are poor fighters? No. They are poor strength fighters, they make for excellent dex fighters. Even in the realms of optimization.

Dwarves are bad wizards? Maybe in the realms of optimization, but in a world where the commoner wizard would have a 12 INT, any PC wizard is far superior.


Again, what you are describing is basically that the monsters are metagaming, because they know if you picked an atypical build and react with shock that you are capable of something most of your race isn't... and since most of your race isn't a PC class, that's just about everything you do.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Agreed. But take into account the legends of each races, which should be known by many ( if only to mock them). Their legendary heroes will be known for the strength of said race. Dwarven heroes are usually fighters. It would be a well known fact amongst all intelligent races/monsters. Lore in D&D is long and does not limits itself to 5ed. Take the war between the Kobold and Gnomish pantheon. Kukutulmak (or something close to that name) was emprisonned by Garl Glittergold into and endless magical labyrinth. This fact is both well know by kobolds and gnomes. This says a lot about what kind of classes gnomes might be good at.

With this in mind, it is not far off to assume a minimal degree of knowledge about the major races legends and heroes and expect members of that race to try to emulate their heroes. And if in recent memory, a member of that race made heroic deeds while emulating said race's heroes, then the stereotype is reinforced tenfold. Thus making an underdog (a halfling barb) can work and be expected to surprise your opponents.

Yes this could be considered meta gaming but is it really so? I believe it is playing the world and making it believable and much more alive and less static. It shows the players that something happens outside of their group. The world is much one alive this way.

If it's more about stuff lore-wise rather than comparing PCs to the average member of the race, you can surely make it so people are surprised due to stereotypes, but there are a lot of mechanically different stuff that might look pretty similar in-world. A Strength Halfling Berserker Barbarian might be unexpected, but a Dexterity Hafling Champion Fighter surely works just fine, and a dude coming at you with a sword ought to look pretty similar, one is just angrier than the other. They could also be a Hexblade attacking with Charisma, or a Shillelagh Druid attacking with Wisdom, since Halflings get subraces that bump those two stats as well.

There are a lot of mechanics in the game to achieve similar stuff, especially bonking people in the head at melee. You can definitely make it so that Halfings are underestimated and just don't usually fight close, but I don't think the PC mechanics reflect that, fixed ASIs or not. Being small hinders their Barbarian-ness far more than not having a Strength bump, imo, that's a mechanics that makes a big difference, and it's the kinda stuff I'd do more if the objective is to preserve archetypes.

 

[Lyxen]

Instead of taking one aspect of a game or post, try to look at it in its totality. This will let you understand a lot more my point of view as I do not focus only on one part of the game but to all its related part. Racial lore is as much important as the mechanical aspects of it that reinforced each other. Thus, this creates expectations and assumptions in both players and monsters about what the general adventurer of each race can usually do.

Indeed, while at the same time the PCs are certainly not the only ones who can be exceptional. In a fantasy world, the unexpected can and should be expected.

 

[Helldritch]

A very long post to say a whole lot of not much.

Every Mountain Dwarf can wear armor and use a hammer. As a commoner, that would mean they are swinging a normal blow that has a +1 to hit and deals 1d8+1 damage.

So your monster sees a dwarf in armor and with a hammer, then they run forward, and swing that hammer so it crashes in to the monsters friend with a boom of thunder that cracks their spine and sends them lifeless into the dirt. They made that attack with a +7 and dealt 2d8+4 damage. That is massively better than any dwarf they have ever seen before. Why don't they react with shock and surprise? Dwarves can't do this, dwarves attack at +1 and a deal 1d8+1 damage.


Or maybe they've seen an adventuring dwarf before, so they could tell me exactly what class that dwarf is and what abilities they were using and how they got them?

Halflings are poor fighters? No. They are poor strength fighters, they make for excellent dex fighters. Even in the realms of optimization.

Dwarves are bad wizards? Maybe in the realms of optimization, but in a world where the commoner wizard would have a 12 INT, any PC wizard is far superior.


Again, what you are describing is basically that the monsters are metagaming, because they know if you picked an atypical build and react with shock that you are capable of something most of your race isn't... and since most of your race isn't a PC class, that's just about everything you do.

A commoner is not a wizard. A commoner will not wear plate mail or anything beyond studded leather or maybe hide. In fact, a commoner might not even see a gold piece in his entire lives. The hammer your commoner might wield will not be a warhammer but a carpenter's one. At best a spear or a bow. Monsters will judge by the standards they meet, the adventurers. And since adventurers tend to emulate their heroes my point stands.

And what if, in your example, the armored dwarf meets the melee monsters with a wall of fire? Or your little halfling lifts the heavy orc and throws him into the the fire pit?

Ho the dwarf is strong and meets the foe with a big bong of a big whammy hammer... nothing new. The strength and power of the blow can be surprising, but not unexpected. That same dwarf with a fire wall/ball has both and would force monsters to reconsider what they took for the absolute truth and could potentially make them make mistakes. Or seeing the strength base halfling grabbing the orc to throw it into the fire pit or clinging with one hand on the dragon's back and proceed to hack it with unsettling rage with his big... short sword.

These are the images that playing against type can bring. Do we see those very often? Nope. But when we have one, we are happy because it is both unexpected and refreshing. But if every members of every races can do anything, it quickly fades into the usual. Other systems have gone this way and they are not even near the heel of D&D in popularity.

 

[Aldarc]

And neither is it he designers' intent, especially with 5e where wealth does not matter and magic items are totally optional, if I might add.

PH introduction: "You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama." Pray tell where it mentions wealth and magical items ?

IMHO, this is a some Grade A selective quoting, because the PHB introduction does talk about the PCs discovering and gaining magic items as well as increasing the capabilities and power of PCs.

 

[Bill Zebub]

A commoner is not a wizard. A commoner will not wear plate mail or anything beyond studded leather or maybe hide. In fact, a commoner might not even see a gold piece in his entire lives. The hammer your commoner might wield will not be a warhammer but a carpenter's one. At best a spear or a bow. Monsters will judge by the standards they meet, the adventurers. And since adventurers tend to emulate their heroes my point stands.

I just want to point out that all of the above can be true in a given game world (and, indeed, are usually true in my game worlds) but might not be true in others' worlds. So any argument predicated upon treating these opinions as truths isn't going to be very strong.

As far as I can tell, this argument about "playing against type" comes down to perception and preference. That is, it's easier to image a Dwarf wizard being "against type" if there's something about the rules that suggest that Dwarves tend not to be Wizards. Therefore it's easier to imagine NPCs (whether friend or foe) being surprised by one. And maybe even easier for the other players to imagine their characters being surprised.

(This also describes the thing we discussed earlier in the thread, that some people find it easier to imagine elves as a species being more dextrous if the rules for PC creation have a Dexterity bonus.)

But in general I don't think I give much weight to the argument that the rules should be a certain way because it makes it easier for me to imagine the game world in the way I prefer. (If so, I'd be arguing to get rid of rapiers and tinker gnomes.). Or, if I'm weighing arguments between one player who wants a rule because it allows them to mechanically create a character they want, and another player who doesn't want that rule because...even though it doesn't force them to do anything new, or prevent them from doing anything they used to do...it just doesn't fit their mental image of the game world, I think I'm usually going to side with the first player.

 

[FrogReaver]

I just want to point out that all of the above can be true in a given game world (and, indeed, are usually true in my game worlds) but might not be true in others' worlds. So any argument predicated upon treating these opinions as truths isn't going to be very strong.

We are talking about a particular game world. A stereotypical D&D world. That doesn't mean any facts of it are universally true of other game worlds, but let's not simply bring in other game worlds for convenience sake when we all know the kind of game world we are talking about.

 

[Maxperson]

This is a fantasy world, races are not equal, and I love the dwarves in LotR for being incredible artisans and crafters, and other qualities. That does not make them good at magic, or as clever as Noldors (who are jerks for other reasons, in general).

Just a nitpick, but Noldor is already the plural, so an S isn't added. A Noldo sits on a bench, while ten Noldor talk nearby.

 

[Lyxen]

IMHO, this is a some Grade A selective quoting, because the PHB introduction does talk about the PCs discovering and gaining magic items as well as increasing the capabilities and power of PCs.

It talks about a lot of things, but it is also clear about the intent of the game, in particular in the preface. If i'm not mistaken, the sentence is: "The adventurers can solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and other treasure."

Does it make it the intent of the game to gain wealth and magic items ? No, every single time the intent is described, it's about creating a story. "Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."

Again, not that the game cannot be played in many different ways...

 

[Lyxen]

Just a nitpick, but Noldor is already the plural, so an S isn't added. A Noldo sits on a bench, while ten Noldor talk nearby.

Thanks for this, I had completely forgotten that.