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

[Yaarel]

Others have said that the racial ASIs are important to them in how they support their preferred imagery of the game world, and rules that allow races to break their traditional archetypes lessen that imagery. I get it. I'm right there with them on exotic player races, zeppelins, rapiers, technology (e.g. all the "clockworks" in Dragon Heist), and a bunch of things that don't fit my preferred thematics but that seem to increase with every edition and even every supplement within an edition.

The examples in the post precisely belong in the design of a setting. Not core rules.

It might be that the Forgotten Realms setting is increasingly modern, thematically, with Renaissance, Enlightenment, etcetera. But it isnt the only setting. There are other settings ws well, especially homebrew.

So when ability score options are core rules, it is the job of setting building to think about the cultural themes that are prominent.

 

[Lyxen]

can someone explain to me why Yuan-Ti haven't wiped spellcasters out yet?

Just because everyone hates yuan-ti and will group to eradicate them. But while it's true as a generalisation for the world, PCs are not supposed to be statistics but exceptional individuals, and the rarity factor of PF should not apply. The only way out was the Level equivalent of 3e, but again the combos killed everything in terms of balance in that edition, thank you powergamers....

 

[Lyxen]

I'm confused as to how leveling up would not count as "powergaming" under this definition.

It's all about the intent that you have when playing the game. Some people play it to tell stories, others play it to win fights, get xps, get levels and magic items.

Just as with good and evil, it's not necessarily about the things you do, it's about the intent that you have when playing the game, because it colors everything that you do and the way you play.

You get more powerful abilities, spells, floating asi every 4 levels, etc, and in turn face greater challenges. This is true across editions, and why dnd more of a "challenge-based" game than a "story game."

No, it's not, and the very fact that it is your definition compared to the one provided by the devs shows that you have a different take on the game.

It does not mean that one is good and one is bad, but please don't impose the view that it is a challenged-based game, it is not, not only not necessarily but even the designers have designed the game with another objective in mind, that's all.

Play the game you want, I'll play it the way I want, don't force untrue definitions down my throat.

But even if we look at the design of dnd, as mentioned above, it's a challenged-based game.

Once more, no, it's not. It's how YOU play it, but I don't, we don't at our tables. Do you see how annoying it is to pretend that all the time, when people, including the designers themselves, tell you that it's not true ?

 

[Lyxen]

Yes, some powergamers are spotlight hogs that only care about their own DPR, not that of their fellow party members.

Yes, and these are the ones most frequently encountered, at least by me, in particular on forums.

The same also applies to some roleplayers that want to be the center of attention in non-combat encounters. In my experience, both are equally likely to happen, and often are the same people. However, corellation is not causation, and Powergaming in general is absolutely not about "one's own fun with no consideration to the fun of other players' fun".

In most cases it is, because it usually starts with thinking for hours about your character and making it powerful, in a complete vacuum of what the DM and the other players are thinking. And this colors your thinking down the line.

After that, some people do not have to be jerks about it, which is fine. And I've always said that if your whole table is a table of powergamers, have fun.

But the main problem is when you mix them with other players types, because that is when the looking down to, the sneering, the complaints about "ruining the party", leading to ordering other players around start to come about.

I recommend that you actually play with some powergamers in the future. Good powergamers, not the spotlight hogs that you've proclaimed are the heart and sole of powergaming. Powergaming is not incompatible or discordant with teamwork. You just need to find the right people.

Believe me, I have done so, and had some fun. But I consider that there is much more to the game than this (and again, the designers tell you that this is their point of view), and I now prefer playing in a different mode. But it's fine if that is what you prefer, enjoy the game, just don't try to impose options on other games when they are absolutely not needed for fun in the game as designed.

 

[Lyxen]

Why does the intention of the "devs" matter so much? The creators of the World of Darkness games also intended their games to be story- and character-centric (in their view, in contrast to dnd), but many argue that the mechanics of these games don't actually support that design goal. I think when we look at game design the focus should be on the effect, not the intent.

And the people who argue are the ones who would like all these games to be closer to the playstyle what they like, what a coincidence !

Look, no one is forbidding you to play any game the way you want, it's a private game between your friends and you, but I find it really astounding that people still continue to argue that the game was designed one way when not only the words of the designers, but the actual design tell you otherwise. For example, the choice of natural language or 5e clearly tells you that the intent is not to have ruleslawyering, because you will never be able to have exact definition of terms , every time it's been tried on forums, it degenerates as to which dictionary to use, which is really ridiculous. The fact that the designers tell you, up front that rules do not matter and that a DM is expected to make many rulings during a game shows you that creating builds based on rules is futile, because the rules are not precise enough and can in any case be changed at a whim's notice by the DM. So in the end we get these ridiculous claims by powergamers that a DM mandatorily should post in advance all rules modification that they intend to put in effect in their game, because otherwise it will destroy everything that they have tried to hard to build. And all these posts of people threatening to leave games because "a bad DM has betrayed them".

Again, if it is the way these people want to play the game, and they enjoy it, all the better for them, but I find it really silly to pretend that the design of the game supports this, it clearly does not, unless you in effect redesign it by adding tons of additional definitions and local rules, that you have to verify when you play with a new table, otherwise your build will not function to your satisfaction and you might lose DPR (god forbid !).

So would floating ASI create powergamers at your table? That is, your group has a distinct playstyle

It's not "distinct", it's precisely what is described in the PH. The very fact that you deem it "distinct" is telling !

that that centers on characters and stories, and so it seems, by your description, that your players are not the kind to use floating ASI just to find the most optimal combinations. Turns out, there are a lot of tables like this.

Really ? You have statistics ?

At my table, floating ASI is irrelevant, because no one is looking to optimize in the first place.

Then I must say that I'm a bit lost about the kind of game that you are playing...

Powergaming, if it means anything, should refer to a playstyle. I don't think you can take a central mechanic from the game (experience points and levels), and say that engaging with those elements constitutes a playstyle.

Once more, it's about the intention. My intention is to tell stories, and a good (epic) story does not exist without character progression (read Joseph Campbell). But when the whole game is about technical elements of the game (and again, when the designers themselves tell you that these are only tools to tell stories), it becomes a playstyle.

It also doesn't really matter why you level up your characters. You are basically saying "well, at our table we level up but only as a side effect of our rich, character-driven stories, whereas other tables level up because they are powergamers that don't care at all about story." It's a false dichotomy, self-aggrandizing, and condescending.

To be honest, I mostly find the condescension going the other way, about the best players being the ones that have the best characters, and that is from a technical perspective. You will find a lot of these including in this thread, but I think you will be hard pressed to find me saying the reverse, and this, although I happen to like this from the designers: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

So, clearly, the best characters and the best games, from THEIR perspective, are not about reading the technical rules (which you insist reveal the "hidden" design of the game"), memorising them and building something from them.

Again, play the way you want, but don't insist that it has to be a technical game about levelling because there are levels in the rules.

 

[Lyxen]

I have read it, and several times mind you. I read it before I read anything else in any of the Core 5e Rulebooks when I started playing the game. That doesn't mean that it is the final say on how the game can be/should be played, it's just how they intended it when designing 5e. And that has changed throughout the years.

No, it has not. If you think so, prove it. Because, on the other hand, Ihave proof that is has not through the first paragraphs of the SAC, if nothing else.

Now they support a larger variety of playstyles, which is an objectively good thing.

No, the game ALWAYS supported a variety of playstyles, which is a great thing because the openness of the game is its major strength.

WotC detailed the two most important aspects of D&D being its ability to foster and develop friendships, and it's ability to encourage imagination. Neither of those go against the playstyle of powergaming. Powergaming is not incompatible with teamwork or friendships (which I can attest to from my personal experience as a Powergamer Player and DM), and if anything, it encourages creativity.

And this is biased incomplete reading of the rules, because that is just a very partial reading of that introduction. How about things which are not feature, but the intent itself ?

• Playing D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation. You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama.
• The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. It shares elements with childhood games of make-believe. Like those games, D&D is driven by imagination.

Pray tell how these complete sentences (and not single words taken completely out of their context) support powergaming ?

And despite this, the game still supports it (although, by most comments from powergamers, badly, with its natural language, no clear definitions and in particular the absolute refusal from the designers and the Sage Advice to make things more precise, always dithering and opening new possibilities, to the immense frustration of powergamers who can't get a clear answer and end up usually saying that JC is an idiot when all he is doing is very cleverly supporting the inherent fuzzyness of the game).

No, it's proof that it can matter. It might not matter at certain tables, but it does at others. My Eberron campaign would certainly be way, way different if the player characters' wealth didn't matter.

And it's great for you, but I'm sure you realise that it is because YOU made it matter in YOUR campaign by adding tons of elements there about why it matters. Which again, is a great tribute to the openness of the game. But inherently, at its core, the game design makes it so that it does not matter.

It doesn't need to be an integral part of the edition to matter. That's like saying that your pinky finger doesn't matter because you can survive without it. That's not what the definition of "matter" means.

It does not matter in the original game design. The fact that you had to create an entire power armor so that you can use the strength of your pinky in your game and make it matter there does not change the fact that the pinky does not represent a whole human being, and that inferring that because of the pinky, the whole game has to be designed the way you like it is preposterous.

It really doesn't. Not anymore. Maybe it mattered when they were designing the core of the game, but it doesn't anymore. Intent matters up until it's published. After that, it doesn't matter. Death of the Author and all that.

It's really funny how you cling to details to imagine the whole thing, as if it was unknown. But it's not unknown, it's plain as day.

No, it's not. Validity is all that matters. If it's valid, it's an equally appropriate and fine way to play the game. Stop with this "fun supremacy" (preaching that your playstyle of fun is more valid/appropriate because "it's what the game designers were intending when making the game"). It doesn't matter. It may not be "badwrongfun" (because you're going out of your way to avoid saying that it's wrong to play those ways), but you're still saying that it's inferior/"not as important/appropriate".

And again, I find it funny how defensive you are about it and putting words in my mouth. Did I say it was wrong ? Never. Did I say it was not fun ? Never. Did I say it was inferior ? Never.

I just said that my preferences run another way, and that I'm tired of people like you pretending that "the one true way is powergaming because, lo, there are rules in a rulebook, therefore the game must be about rules".

Both are valid ways to eat food/play the game. It doesn't matter if one was the intent. That doesn't make it better or superior. Stop saying that it does, please.

And please start reading my posts instead of reacting to some imaginary slights on your playing style. The only thing I'm saying is that the designers has a storytelling intent when designing the game, it's plain as day in their own words and in the major design decisions like natural language, fuzziness, central role of the DM as lead storyteller, etc.

They were also clever enough not to kill the sacred cow and leave it open to other playstyles, including the technical one (although, again, it does not really work out of the box until you create your own definitions and add-ons, including rigidifying the whole structure and making a large number of specific rulings "permanent").

But for some reasons, being reminded that the first official words of the game are "The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery."

Don't put storytelling at the forefront of your games if you don't like it, heck, don't do any of it, I really don't care. But pretending that the words are not there (while still revering all the technical words in the book as the holy RAW) is certainly showing some bias in reading.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

For example, the choice of natural language or 5e clearly tells you that the intent is not to have ruleslawyering, because you will never be able to have exact definition of terms , every time it's been tried on forums, it degenerates as to which dictionary to use, which is really ridiculous.

(slight tengeant on natural language...)

Resorting to the dictionary to get the meaning of a natural language doesn't seem ridiculous to me. Natural language promotes rules lawyering, which is an attempt to get a ruling in your favour based on how something is written. Natural language is extremely imprecise, which is a quality for poetic writing but a liability for technical and legal writing. Law isn't written in a specific, complex, and unintuitive (sometimes) way from a layman's point of view to encourage lawyering, but to promote consistent judicial decisions. If you don't define precisely theft, you'll risk inconsistent sentencing because no two judges will have the exact same definition of theft. Lawyering is a residual thing: trying to "exploit" unclear definitions despite the effort put into writing law in a very specific way. It's the same with natural language and gaming: if you use it, of course you won't have people trying to find "loopholes" in the writing of the rules to find narrow ways to achieve greater power than intended, but you'll open yourself to many lawyering opportunities regarding what the terms used mean.

The fact that the designers tell you, up front that rules do not matter and that a DM is expected to make many rulings during a game shows you that creating builds based on rules is futile, because the rules are not precise enough and can in any case be changed at a whim's notice by the DM.

Not really. The DM is expected to make many rulings, but he's also expected to be an arbiter, fair and consistent. If he rules that swmming in boiling water does low damage, then later when the party considers crossing steaming waters by swimming and he decides that this time, it will deal 10d6 damage per round, it's possible, but it's not a stellar example of refereeing. The benefit of the legal language of rules is to provide consistency and narrow the lawyering opportunities, which in this case would be "Hey, but last time we dropped a bandit into the Boiling River and he just got out unscathed and now we can't cross it because we'll die after a few seconds, while this totally normal human like us bandit didn't have a significant damage? How come?" Putting on the GM the onus of determining "swiming in boiling water" damage value certainly allows for different ruling from one table to another, which is great because no two tables will have the exact same shared fantasy (and vision on how much being in boiling water hurt a hero), but it doesn't remove the necessity of having providing consistent rulings and each new situation becomes open to discussion. Whether it disrupt plays because it's done at the table or whether it is dealt with after the game doesn't change the amount of work natural language puts on the GM.

So in the end we get these ridiculous claims by powergamers that a DM mandatorily should post in advance all rules modification that they intend to put in effect in their game, because otherwise it will destroy everything that they have tried to hard to build. And all these posts of people threatening to leave games because "a bad DM has betrayed them".

That's exactly the result of the use of natural language. It empowers the DM... but with the responsability that comes with it. There is no rule saying that changing damage type change the effect of a spell. So if you cast fireball, which deals fire damage and put unattended objects on fire inside a library, you can expect books to burn. Should a player change damage type to cold damage, expecting to save the book since he's basically throwing extremely cold air at the enemy, the GM is totally free to rule that the books burn spontaneously (which can break the immersion when imagining the scene). But it would be something that is known by the character that his frost ball puts things on fire. So yes, sometimes the GM must gives some advance rulings so players know how to play their characters, especially rulings regarding characters' abilities. (If on the other hand, the GM intend to rule that frost ball cover everything in snow, it is also useful to know for the character beforehand, so there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Simply that the result of the ruling would be known by the character, in game. If everything was in the rules, the rules would give the answer, but as soon as something is left to the GM... it's his responsability. And the effect of the fireball spell would be known by a character who gets it taught at a wizard university, so he could maybe choose another spell if the "damage substitution trick to prevent unwanted arson" doesn't work. So sometimes you need to know rulings very far in advance, when they can effect character building.

At some point there was a discussion (that of course led nowhere) on whether the armorer's gauntlet had a value of more than 1 sp (to cast a cantrip on). Some argued that since it has no value in the book it isn't more than 1 sp, other said that since it is part of an armor worth tens of gp, it must surely be worth at least 1 sp. There is no answer in the rules, but surely the player of an artifcer choosing his cantrip at level 1 would like to know if he will be able to use it after level 3 when he gets his gauntlet... If he was told "sure, no problem" at level 1, then told at level 3 "sorry, you'll need to retrain your cantrip next level because you can't because now I am ruling differently" the player would be justified in saying the GM was horrible to him.

In my opinion, the choice of using natural language over technical/legal language widened, and not narrowed, the opportunities for complaining about one's GM and made the refereeing job more complicated than it used to be (moving from "finding the appropriate applicable rule and adjudicating in last resort" to "adjudicating quite often").

 

[Lyxen]

(slight tengeant on natural language...)

Resorting to the dictionary to get the meaning of a natural language doesn't seem ridiculous to me.

Well, YMMV, but when combined with an entire book that tells you that reading the rules is not important to what's the best in the game, don't you think that this is a bit bizarre ?

Natural language promotes rules lawyering, which is an attempt to get a ruling in your favour based on how something is written.

This might be true if ruleslawyering had not been completely discouraged by other features like fuzzy rules and setting the DM firmly on decision making, not the players. But the combination of these features diminish it so strongly that it has completely disappeared from any game that we have played since 5e came out.

Natural language is extremely imprecise, which is a quality for poetic writing but a liability for technical and legal writing.

Which just goes to prove that the intent of the game is storytelling and not technical/legal writing.

Law isn't written in a specific, complex, and unintuitive (sometimes) way from a layman's point of view to encourage lawyering, but to promote consistent judicial decisions. If you don't define precisely theft, you'll risk inconsistent sentencing because no two judges will have the exact same definition of theft. Lawyering is a residual thing: trying to "exploit" unclear definitions despite the effort put into writing law in a very specific way. It's the same with natural language and gaming: if you use it, of course you won't have people trying to find "loopholes" in the writing of the rules to find narrow ways to achieve greater power than intended, but you'll open yourself to many lawyering opportunities regarding what the terms used mean.

See above, fortunately, in the game design, it's consistent and achieves the required effect, so I'm happy.

Not really. The DM is expected to make many rulings, but he's also expected to be an arbiter, fair and consistent. If he rules that swmming in boiling water does low damage, then later when the party considers crossing steaming waters by swimming and he decides that this time, it will deal 10d6 damage per round, it's possible, but it's not a stellar example of refereeing. The benefit of the legal language of rules is to provide consistency and narrow the lawyering opportunities, which in this case would be "Hey, but last time we dropped a bandit into the Boiling River and he just got out unscathed and now we can't cross it because we'll die after a few seconds, while this totally normal human like us bandit didn't have a significant damage? How come?" Putting on the GM the onus of determining "swiming in boiling water" damage value certainly allows for different ruling from one table to another, which is great because no two tables will have the exact same shared fantasy (and vision on how much being in boiling water hurt a hero), but it doesn't remove the necessity of having providing consistent rulings and each new situation becomes open to discussion. Whether it disrupt plays because it's done at the table or whether it is dealt with after the game doesn't change the amount of work natural language puts on the GM.

One of the main benefits is having shorter,more compact rules, avoiding ruleslawyers learning all of them by heart and cross-referencing rules and definitions all over the place (and powergamers of course mentioning only the rules that go in their direction, just like they forget half the book when reading it because it does not support their claim that of course the game is supposed to be technical).

Also, by using non-technical words, the game shows that it is meant to be non-technical, therefore see the paragraph above, but then it makes it easy for the GM (who has read the whole book and its spirit/intent) to remind them that he makes the rulings, the book does not make the rulings, and therefore do not make the rulings based on the books.

That's exactly the result of the use of natural language. It empowers the DM... but with the responsability that comes with it.

Of course, but it's much better than empowering the players who have much less sense of responsibility in general (I mean, good players have, but in general it's a bit lost on many of them, especially those with a bias in playing).

There is no rule saying that changing damage type change the effect of a spell. So if you cast fireball, which deals fire damage and put unattended objects on fire inside a library, you can expect books to burn. Should a player change damage type to cold damage, expecting to save the book since he's basically throwing extremely cold air at the enemy, the GM is totally free to rule that the books burn spontaneously (which can break the immersion when imagining the scene). But it would be something that is known by the character that his frost ball puts things on fire. So yes, sometimes the GM must gives some advance rulings so players know how to play their characters, especially rulings regarding characters' abilities.

No he does not. IF you think that the rules say this, prove it to me. The right spirit of the game, as explicitely stated and which causes no problem whatsoever to our groups is that, when the player tries something, he will ask the DM what he does and accept the ruling. The rules themselves tell you so. So why would the player insist that some rules are absolutely to be followed and others not ?

The rules cannot tell you everything about what could happen in edge cases. It is my experience, and the designers themselves have told you so: "Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable." That has been tried and proven in 3e, for example. So why insist on repeating the same mistake ?

(If on the other hand, the GM intend to rule that frost ball cover everything in snow, it is also useful to know for the character beforehand, so there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Simply that the result of the ruling would be known by the character, in game. If everything was in the rules, the rules would give the answer, but as soon as something is left to the GM... it's his responsability.

And the DMs accept it. Where exactly is the worry about this ?

And the effect of the fireball spell would be known by a character who gets it taught at a wizard university, so he could maybe choose another spell if the "damage substitution trick to prevent unwanted arson" doesn't work. So sometimes you need to know rulings very far in advance, when they can effect character building.

And again, technical character building is not the point of the game. If you think it is, please prove it, but it's not necessary at all for a game "about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery".

And our players accommodate themselves perfectly of choosing something because it looks cook, trying it in the game and being happy with a cool description (that usually the DM will let them do themselves because he trusts them not to abuse it - because that's the problem of letting powergaming players do the decision, they will make it so that they can abuse it later, preferencably when it combines with another unexpected features, and they will then whine when it's nerfed).

At some point there was a discussion (that of course led nowhere) on whether the armorer's gauntlet had a value of more than 1 sp (to cast a cantrip on). Some argued that since it has no value in the book it isn't more than 1 sp, other said that since it is part of an armor worth tens of gp, it must surely be worth at least 1 sp. There is no answer in the rules, but surely the player of an artifcer choosing his cantrip at level 1 would like to know if he will be able to use it after level 3 when he gets his gauntlet... If he was told "sure, no problem" at level 1, then told at level 3 "sorry, you'll need to retrain your cantrip next level because you can't because now I am ruling differently" the player would be justified in saying the GM was horrible to him.

No, he would not, because it's not the spirit of the game, unless you forcefully make it so. But the game itself does not tell you that it's horrible, and does not tell the player to be horrible and anal about this, because, once more, the game does not tell you to optimise everything to the gills.

In my opinion, the choice of using natural language over technical/legal language widened, and not narrowed, the opportunities for complaining about one's GM and made the refereeing job more complicated than it used to be (moving from "finding the appropriate applicable rule and adjudicating in last resort" to "adjudicating quite often").

It only widened it for people who were already ruleslawyers and who want to go to the next level, arguing about dictionaries. But that's not a problem, because at the same time it gave the DMs all the tools that they need to shutdown that obnoxious (powergamers are not necessarily obnoxious, but ruleslawyers are, IMHO) behaviour. So if you think it widened it, it's only because, despite all the recommendations of the rules, you continue to allow it. And this is by using a biased reading of the rules, you allow some and discard others.

 

[Chaosmancer]

In 38 years of playing, I've never once seen two people at the table roll the same 6 numbers for stats.

Congratulations. That doesn't mean it is impossible, and I'm also curious why it must be the same 6 numbers? Having two people with 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 is a problem, but having two people one of whom has 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 and the other 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9 isn't a problem? Why not, why is your sense of what abstract numbers players can have on their sheets this highly tuned?

I don't require people to play in my game. If someone opts to, they are accepting my house rules, which include no array. A player who accepts my house rules and then complains about it, that's a pretty large clue that they are a problem player. It violates the social contract.

Ah yes, the classic "I make all the rules, and only problem people don't like them" combined with "If you don't like it my way, leave"

Guess what? That's exactly what I said my friends did. Had a DM who refused anything other than rolling. They tried it out, found the guy was a tyrant, and left. And know we have you, who when pressed about why this is a house rule has admitted it is only because you personally find the array to be unappealing on an aesthetic level, therefore no one is allowed to use it.

I'm not even talking about if anyone has to except your rules, I'm talking about if they should. And since your only reasoning is personal taste being enforced at your table under the belief that your rules shall always go unchallenged unless the player wishes to be kicked from the game, then no, I don't think they should.

No. I've seen 7-25(depending on edition and race) for Fighters, but you asked me about low stats, so that's what I answered. I've seen every number down to 3 if you aren't talking exclusively about fighters.

Talking about 5e, not other editions. Talking about strength fighters because the point is that a character who is choosing to emphasize a stat in class and build, generally makes it a higher number. And therefore, the combos do matter, because a character with a 15 strength is different than a character with a 15 charisma.

I've answered that number. You need to get away from this "potential" kick you're on. It has nothing to do with my issue.

Your issue is that you find it unrealistic that people share a similar range of abilities. Which I put forth is a terrible reason to exclude an option. It is equally unrealistic that every Rogue knows theives cant, where did they learn it? But I don't remove it from the game just because I don't find it terribly realistic.

And your issue is even more egrgious, because I've demonstrated that with a small sample size like what you have, with a small slice of the potential population who pursue the career of adventuring..., then yes, it is perfectly realistic to find people with a similar range of abilities.

You say that they must put the highest number(before bonuses) in strength as a fighter, then add the +2 for race in order to be baseline. That's advocating for fighters to be identical in strength at first level.

Or the +1 from human. And yes, that will result in all strength based fighters having a very similar level of strength. Exact as far as the game is concerned. But, here is the issue Max, you see it as "exact" but you are forgetting that DnD isn't real life. I can't demonstrate a fighter with a 16.32 strength compared to one with a 16.754 strength. We've already shown that to model real life we would need a scale from somewhere around 0.0001 to 200 strength, and instead we are left with a scale from 1 to 30 for the world, and 3 to 20 for the characters. Obviously little nuance differences are going to be lost when you abstract the math to this degree.

So, no, your two 16 strength fighters don't "actually" have the same strength, they just have the same representation of that abstract concept, because we can't model it accurately.

I'm saying that it's a necessary evil to allow. Justify it how you will or not. I have not made a declaration for how anyone does anything, let alone in all scenarios.

Except it isn't neccessary. You just have to fast forward the farmboy a few years later, after he has either gotten some training or self-taught himself. Yes, you are skipping some of the story, but that is "backstory" anyways, just like you had to skip all the training the wizard did, because the wizard absolutely requires training.

Poor Salvatore. Drizzt just forced him to make him the hero and took over. Authors never have any control over their characters. :sigh:

Regardless of any possible intent, and I have no desire to research it, Drizzt has never been the side character to anyone.

Fine, but the point was never that he was. I just used the term Lancer to talk about how archetypes are easily recognized, and you went on this side rant about how Driz'zt was always the main character.

The goddes created for the Realms in the 70's, well before Drizzt was a twinkle in Salvatore's eye, yes. She was not put in the Realms for him. She was put in for herself and just added to D&D later when an opportunity showed up.

And what was her role before good drow were in print? Also, let us say Driz'zt never existed, would she have been put in the game as a goddess of the good rebel drow when there were no good rebel drow?

We can argue the exact order of all this, but the point is if I go to someone even vaguely familiar with the realms and DnD, and I say "good rebel Drow" they are very very likely to say "like Driz'zt?" or "like that one dark elf ranger?" And that means that it is an archetype.

He want AGAINST the drow archetype, which is WHY he was so popular. The rebel is an archetype, though. So he was an archetype, just not a drow archetype.

facedesk

You understand how archetypes work, don't you? Of course he went against the archetype originally. THEN he became popular enough to make a new archetype. This is how it happens. You can't get new archetypes without someone first going against the mold and breaking the archetype. This is like saying "trees are against type for plants, because plants were algea first". You aren't wrong about what came first, you are just ignoring the evolution of the idea.

I put forward an character concept that involved charisma.

After I put forth my character concept. None of the rest of your statement matters, because you were changing my concept to try and disprove my point. That isn't how this works.

Racial traits are based on the physicality or mental ability of the races in question. The lore makes that clear. But sure, I guess goliaths just learn culturally to be huge and strong.

So which physicality or mental ability led to all dwarves learning to use axes and hammers? Or learning blacksmithing, brewing, or masonry? Where is the lore that makes it clear that these were absolutely not culturally learned traits?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Far from that. Yours is in the gutter. You realize that except for the dwarven cleric, all the classes you mentioned are not typical dwarven adventurers as they are on the same level of rarity as a dwarven mage? The dwarven adventurer is already rare and among dwarven adventurers these are about the same rarity. They have an equal surprising value in my eyes. A ton of possibility does not make the dwarven adventurer more common and the odd chance that the adventurer chooses a class that is not favored by racial ASI is even rarer.

So other than one typical dwarf in metal armor casting wall of fire, all the others examples would be surprising.

So, what about the dwarf in metal armor casting wall of fire tells the intelligent enemy that they are a wizard or warlock and not a cleric? One is surprising, and the other is not, and it can't be the armor, the weapon or the wall of fire, so what does it? What surprises them?

Of these, only the Ranger (strength based) and Eldritch knight would be in accordance with dwarven ASI (more or less).

Oh, I agree with that. I agree that the fixed ASIs at the table have made it so only like three dwarven concepts get played, that's why I don't like Racial ASIs to be fixed. But here are a whole bunch of people telling me I'm wrong because every concept was always viable. You yourself have stated that a dwarven wizard with a 15 INT is viable, so if they are viable why are they so shocking?

If any dwarf with a 15 or 14 INT can make a good wizard, then why are these intelligent monsters shocked to see a dwarven wizard? They should be just as common as elven or human wizards, right? Or, are they shocked because those characters aren't viable? And therefore, making more viable concepts is a good thing.

And I see a perfect rule set that is up to date and perfectly valid. You don't like it? Don't use it. Your games your rule. But by RAW with fixed ASI you know that I am right.

Right in what? You are arguing out both sides of your mouth. On one hand, Fixed ASIs giving you a 15 or 14 INT mean that you almost never see a dwarven wizard, because they aren't good at it. On the other hand, 15 or 14 INT makes a perfectly good dwarven wizard who can adventure just fine.

You want it both ways, and it doesn't work that way. If they make fine adventurers anyways, then they aren't rare. If they are rare because they don't make fine adventurers, then Tashas is solving a legitimate problem.

And here we are again. You use non core books to justify your position where I specifically said that I use only core book. 3 books. That is PHB, DMG and MM. Keep to these and your argumentation falls apart.

You are the only one trying to make the core books the end all and be all of DnD, and locked into a single generic setting. I want the core books to cover as many settings as possible. So, your argument of "limit the discussion to the area where I am right and have declared must stay so that I am right" doesn't hold a lot of sway with me.

Who cares? Everyone knows that all elves do magicks. I know that. You know that. The trolls know that too and so do the kobolds and goblins. Common knowledge where the monsters or foes when seeing an elf will assume that some magic will be set against them.

Humans are also magic. Dwarves are magic. Gnomes are magic. Tielflings are magic. Ect ect ect

Again, you seem to be locked in your own view of the game world with no consideration for how that game has changed. Seeing a dwarf doing magic is no more shocking than seeing an elf do it.