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

[Malmuria]

When /If I say meaningless, it's within the context of mechanics, and how those mechanics feed into the cohesiveness of the setting.

I would argue most people when bringing up 'funny hats' are doing the same.

Appearance, within 5e D&D doesn't drive mechanics, in the way ASI, does, within the crunch.

That's all, I'm not saying its meaningless from a real world perspective.

I don't think it's necessary to remove all mechanics as related to race. As I've been arguing, I prefer a racial feat system; you can, IMO, create fantasy races with real, "biological" differences and do so in a way that is intentional and mindful when it comes to real world racism. I don't see that as necessarily inconsistent.

That being said, many aspects of the different races are already not represented or not represented well :cough:: racial ASI), and it would simplify character creation to get rid of mechanics as related to race. So I wouldn't mind, but most of the fanbase would for one reason or another, and again I don't think going to that extreme is necessary.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It would be ironic if the same people who insist that floating ASIs are all about powergaming (with the implication that real roleplayers know how to work with suboptimal stats) were to then argue that non-mechanical differences between the races are insufficient to have meaningful impact on the game.

I would think that the roleplaying implications of visual differences would be enough fodder for the premises of endless adventure.

 

[Marc_C]

No need to remove ASI. There is a very simple way to make every individual different. Fantasy AGE has a random table for each ancestry. Roll twice and voilà. (or choose the two that fit your character concept).

 

[Scribe]

It would be ironic if the same people who insist that floating ASIs are all about powergaming (with the implication that real roleplayers know how to work with suboptimal stats) were to then argue that non-mechanical differences between the races are insufficient to have meaningful impact on the game.

I would think that the roleplaying implications of visual differences would be enough fodder for the premises of endless adventure.

I know you (probably) are not talking to me here, but I clearly am too tired, I cannot understand what you are going for here.

 

[Helldritch]

Serious question: So when the fighter sees his damage output is half of the warlock or rogue, do you alter the character to not be "weakened?" I mean, the reasons are the rules built the fighter that way. But do you alter the fighter, like maybe give them a feat or magic item, so they can keep up?

Same answer as Maxperson but
It would never come to that in the first place.
My DM first moto his:" Everyone must have a chance to shine. ".
This means that if I have to manipulate treasures and make foes that would foil the warlock but not the fighter I will.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I know you (probably) are not talking to me here, but I clearly am too tired, I cannot understand what you are going for here.

Some of the defenders of racial ASIs are arguing from a stance of "roleplaying moral superiority". (For example, that people who want floating ASIs are just powergamers, or that roleplaying underdogs with sub-optimal stats is fun.)

And then one of their criticisms of floating ASIs is that it's leading us inexorably toward a world where there is no mechanical differentiation between races, that the only difference is fluff (physical description, etc.).

That feels like a contradiction to me. The first argument is, "Why are you so obsessed with mechanics? Enjoy the roleplaying!" And the second argument is, "I need mechanics!"

(In some ways this is similar to the thing I observed before, how both sides are in effect saying "+1 is too small to make much of a difference in the thing you care about, but it's a huge factor in the thing I care about.")

 

[Scribe]

Some of the defenders of racial ASIs are arguing from a stance of "roleplaying moral superiority". (For example, that people who want floating ASIs are just powergamers, or that roleplaying underdogs with sub-optimal stats is fun.)

And then one of their criticisms of floating ASIs is that it's leading us inexorably toward a world where there is no mechanical differentiation between races, that the only difference is fluff (physical description, etc.).

That feels like a contradiction to me. The first argument is, "Why are you so obsessed with mechanics? Enjoy the roleplaying!" And the second argument is, "I need mechanics!"

(In some ways this is similar to the thing I observed before, how both sides are in effect saying "+1 is too small to make much of a difference in the thing you care about, but it's a huge factor in the thing I care about.")

I don't think those are the same people, but yeah, this is why I prefer simple statements to begin with, so people can at least form a basis of understanding, if not agreement.

 

[Scott Christian]

You have had some good points in this thread, but this is not one of them.

I equate Tiefling to race because…it’s categorized in the game as a race. It’s not a feat any race can take. I don’t understand what’s difficult to grasp here.

It is only listed under a race because there is no better place to put it. Much like a changeling in 5e or an undead race in 4e. There is no setting in 5e that I have read where there is a kingdom of tieflings or changelings or a bazaar that has hundreds of undead vendors and merchants. These characters are meant to be rare. The fact that you can't accept is exactly what I said, it demonstrates narrow vision. This is a game with a lot of rules, and thus, you need to categorize a lot of things. "Races" is one of them.

I mean isn't one of the primary arguments of people who want floating ASIs the fact that the description of the "Race" in the PHB isn't a description of the race, but rather the player character. Hence, the descriptions aren't even a description of the race, but rather an outline the player can use when playing a character of that type.

Also your postulate about rare == charismatic is patently false. You cherry picked a few exceptions, but I would argue that in general being an outlier results in being shunned/feared/despised. But if you think otherwise I’m not interested in arguing the point.

And being shunned, feared and despised can unequivocally add to your charisma.

P.S. Also, you missed the mark asking why I “see genetics as racist.” I don’t, and that was quite a leap getting there. I said that the Tiefling Cha mod was based on genetics, not background. The result, in this case, is a racist trope. But that is not saying that genetics is racist. I genuinely hope you understand the difference.

I did miss it, and I apologize. I haven't logged on in a while and was backlogged on the discussion. My apologies.

 

[Scott Christian]

That's fair, I'm not an olympic weightlifting expert. There are strict rules though which do make it harder.

For example:

1.7.2 Any deliberate oscillation of the barbell to gain advantage. The athlete and the barbell have to become motionless before starting the jerk.

I don't think we're talking about holding a boulder straight over head with legs together and everything locked out either. You're right that the weight would be less but one thing with strongman competitions is that they don't have as many form rules as powerlifting and weightlifting competitions do.

Very true. And many of the strongman winners on the boulder lift (which is just awesome to watch in my opinion) have long arms. Like literally, that is what it boils down to, having a gut to rest the boulder on, and having arms long (and of course strong) enough to lift it.

But the swinging thing is if they roll the barbell back and forth prior to lifting. And you are correct, that might give them another ten or fifteen pounds.

 

[Scott Christian]

Why are we diminishing appearance as a meaningful form of difference? In the real world, the extremely minor variation of human appearance has led to the entire edifice of racism, institutional and interpersonal.

In fantasy, appearance could be a kind of world-building cue. For example, you could say "orcs have tusk-like teeth" (biological difference, noticeable as appearance). "For this reason, they are thought to be 'ferocious' by x and y clan of dwarves, even though this is not the case."

So there's a lack of nuance in saying that the descriptions as currently written are racist, and therefore the entire description should be removed. Or that the way that cultural difference is articulated is reductive, and therefore all reference to cultural difference should be removed. Rather, what those of us concerned about these kind of things want are different ways of thinking about difference in fantasy worlds.

This is an excellent discussion.

To play devil's advocate, I would argue to do that you need a baseline setting. One that is cohesive and starts off static. At present, D&D is not that. So the nuances (which I really like for a cohesive setting) would become overwhelming because in the end, D&D players want everything under the sun. They want to play a dryad, a pharaoh, an Eberron orc and a generic orc. It would instantly become far too complicated.