D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[clearstream]

Yeah right, because it is absolutely forbidden to give a PC Orc a -2 to Int, but it's totally acceptable to say that the species has 7 Int ? Or it's not acceptable because they are orcs, but totally acceptable for xvarts (because they are blue and no-one knows who they are anyway) ?

Yes, it does matter if a game race is a mirror of - can be connected with - real-world stereotypes.

I'm sorry, but all of this is only about people deciding to be offended, sometimes not even for themselves

So for you, to take a position on anything other than your own interests, is inexplicable? Another way to think about it is how widely you cast the net of your interests. I believe the world is a better place - for me - if others are treated fairly, can enjoy safety, and participate equally.

 

[Lyxen]

So you will at least agree that - when it comes to Dex - the mechanical impact is more than you originally characterised it?

Only because you mixed in all the changes, but these affect a character on his primary stat as well as anyone on his secondary stat, so no, it's not an argument at all.

So when you think about balance, you are only thinking about game breaking? Is that right?

Seeing that the game has not been designed to be balanced (said by the authors themselves), nitpicking about small balance items just shows that one does not understand the game's design, and second has another idea in mind that just correcting a minor potential issue of balance.

So yes, in a naturally unbalanced game, I only think about game breaking, all the rest is pointless and will sort itself out naturally.

The opportunities for leverage over the narrative - for emerging narrative from play - change.

No, they don't. On any single potential change, not only does the rule of large numbers not apply so a +1 is totally negligible compared to the swinginess of a d20, but in any case it is subject to the actual DC that you are shooting for, which is completely arbitrary from the DM anyway. So this argument is beyond invalid.

Remember that I am seeking for this to happen and be regulated by game mechanics. Hence I want to play a game. If your preferences do not lie with game qua game, then we won't reach agreement or even necessarily mutual understanding.

And this is again insulting, nothing in what I'm saying shows that I'm not playing the game, just one with different mechanics.

On the other hand, it seems that you only want to play a game for the mechanistical aspect of it, whereas I'm playing a ROLEPLAYING game, hence one where the rules are secondary to the objective of playing the game, which is having fun. It makes the rules less important because if they are in the way of the story, they go.

 

[glass]

I put 'other'.

I want D&D 6e etc. to adopt something along the lines of either Level Up 5e's ASI system (background provides a fixed boost +1 and a flexible +1 boost) or Pathfinder 2e's system (boosts from class, ancestory, background, and then four free boosts

This is pretty much where I am, except that I interpretted it as coming under "some fixed and some floating". Basically, my ideal system would be pretty much PF2's minus the red queen race.

_
glass.

 

[Lyxen]

Yes, it does matter if a game race is a mirror of - can be connected with - real-world stereotypes.

Then just don't do the connection, it's the people creating the connection that cause the problem, because they are the one with the agenda. Please tell me where the game itself ever does the connection between orcs and real-world stereotypes, I'll be waiting.

On the contrary, I can point you to a huge number of sources wanting to make that connection to further their own agenda. My main purpose is to deny them any fuel for their noxious fires, there is nothing to see in that game, why don't you fight the real good fight in the real world where it belongs ?

So for you, to take a position on anything other than your own interests, is inexplicable? Another way to think about it is how widely you cast the net of your interests. I believe the world is a better place - for me - if others are treated fairly, can enjoy safety, and participate equally.

Oh yes, and I do things for this, in the real world for real good causes. But I do this without debasing these important and valuable fights with fantasy and false news, because you are helping no one by fighting for the wrong reasons and in the wrong arena. This is usually where all these things go wrong, because the real topics are too complex, or too delicate, or require too much effort, it's much easier to go and slander things which are totally innocent and have nothing to do with the topic at hand, because it's easy and you feel righteous (or, in some cases, not yours, just want visibility). But it's still wrong and not addressing the real problem, it's muddying the issue and causing backlash instead of solving the problem.

 

[clearstream]

This is why I focussed it on physical stats, because, on the contrary, we have very clear examples for human history of adaptation of certain ethnicities to certain environments, sometimes with extremely spectacular effect, and therefore on their culture (and the impact on other cultures, for example how Massai displaced other ethnic groups), for example in Africa.

Your hypothesis is that the Massai were successful because they had a +1 strength and constitution modifiers (in game terms)? And that those ability scores caused their culture to diverge from other humans in Africa?

Good, most RQ fans preferred the Prax settings, but it's clearly a matter of taste.

I guess 'most' excludes grognardia. I would say it is the material collectively that was great. For example, without the material in Cults of Chaos, the Lunar Empire might have felt less threatening to my players. I didn't find Pavis as amenable to extended play as Griffon Mountain, but that could really depend on a campaign's focus. I've always preferred to run expansive, wandering adventures.

Does it work as well without large powerful Uz and very weak trollkin ? Without the physical might of the dragonewts ? I'm 100% convinced that if you were not trying to sell Tasha's, your perspective would be different, since it's obvious both in real life and in the games' cultures.

You mean that if I did not think what I did, then I would not think it? I'm with you on that.

And yet you do, you don't want it "all marble" or "all wood", but because you want it with "no marble", it ends up the same as "all wood".

I feel like this metaphor has been exhausted

 

[Scott Christian]

Let's look at the Orc Caster.

Before an orc was a weak but functional caster. Thier high strength.could be used with touch spells and there were tons of touch spells. Their high constitution could be used to get in closeenough to use touch spells. It wasn't a good archatype but it had a point.

What happened in 5e? Touch spells use your casting stat. There are few touch spells. Every caster got tougher. The casters make spell melee attacks with their casting stat. Whereas orcs and halforcs where leaned harder to weapons.

So now where they once was a niche for them, there is none for the orc wizard/sorcerer/cleric/warlock. Any complaints where chased away with "Well orcs are supposed to be melee. You just want the +2 INT for power gaming."

This is a complete lack of imagination, and actually proves the point you were debating by @Lyxen .

I had a 5e half-orc wizard. He was phenomenal. Maybe my favorite character to date for 5e. He had strength, and I could occasionally smack things when they got close. He had athletic ability. So when it came time to climb, jump, swim, lift, etc. I didn't worry. He would get dropped and bounce right back up. He could intimidate. All these things made me play the wizard differently than I would have if I had played an elf. And guess what, he was smart. 15 smart. So better than most.

So he had a niche. You just don't see it or you think the only niche there is is to start with a 16.

 

[Mecheon]

I shouldn't dive into the orc mess. But, here I go...

Please tell me where the game itself ever does the connection between orcs and real-world stereotypes, I'll be waiting.

X8: Drums on Fire Mountain. You're welcome. Or not.

Dragging it back to ASIs, can anyone name a D&D orc as well known in general nerd culture as Warcraft's Gul'dan? Because, ol Gul'dan is about as far from the stereotypical orc as you can get, being of below average strength and more of a tricky spellcaster. Is there any D&D orc who even holds a candle to how well known he is?

Would have Gul'dan been a better character with traditional orc ASIs? Because I'd say no. Having a 'This is what the race normally tends to be' is fine, but locking that in no matter anything can take away some fun story stuff. I remain supporting floating simply because of that

 

[Lyxen]

Your hypothesis is that the Massai were successful because they had a +1 strength and constitution modifiers (in game terms)? And that those ability scores caused their culture to diverge from other humans in Africa?

They had way more than that (because D&D does not recognise SIZ as a stat like RQ does, but for example look at the agimori in RQ - which are clearly the local equivalent of massai although non-human as they have the fire rune - their stats are STR 3d6+6 / CON d4+14 / SIZ 3D6+6 compared to standard human 3d6 / 3d6 / 2d6+6, much more than a simple +1) compared to other ethnicities of the area, which allowed them to develop their influence and culture in certain ways where other ethnics and cultures were pushed out of the way and had to adapt their own. They did not need magical powers, they had superb stats and great adaptation to their grassland environment, whereas completely different cultures and ethnicities flourished for completely opposite reasons in the dense areas of jungle.

I guess 'most' excludes grognardia. I would say it is the material collectively that was great. For example, without the material in Cults of Chaos, the Lunar Empire might have felt less threatening to my players. I didn't find Pavis as amenable to extended play as Griffon Mountain, but that could really depend on a campaign's focus. I've always preferred to run expansive, wandering adventures.

Maybe it was the sandbox aspect that pleased you, because it was in a sense more open that for example Borderlands. But if you look at the interesting article that you referenced, what they praise is a "complete" setting in a box, because it is comprehensive and almost (you mentioned Cults of Chaos but I think meant Cults of Terror, and for the Lunars, it's probably the Seven Mothers which are in Cults of Prax) self-sufficient.

But I love city adventures and location based one where there is a lot of development, so Borderlands is really the perfect campaign for me, it has all of that and also really nice scenarios that pit culture against culture, religion against religion, etc. with the undercurrents of economics and survical, followed by Pavis and the Big Rubble, a fantastic City (Hmmmm, Griselda) and playing ground (where, it's mostly for antagonists to play with your mangled remains).

 

[FrozenNorth]

Seems like we’re on the same page there. The game as it’s played today simply isn’t the same game that was played then. Racial ASIs are getting in the way of how folks these days are actually playing the game, which in my opinion means it’s time for them to go the way of THAC0.

While I generally agree with you about how the game is played, I disagree with the last point. 5e adventures tend to be balanced relatively loosely, so that a character that starts with a +2 in their main stat isn’t unviable compared to one who receives a +3.

I find that pure floating puts too much pressure on getting that 16 in your main stat, so that we are trading one set of unfortunate assumptions (re race) for a separate set (if you aren’t the absolute top at your main ability, you aren’t worth playing). I love the half-orc wizard who despite being pretty damn smart is not as smart as the elf wizards and had to work that much harder to succeed.

That is why I favour of fixed and floating ASI. A half-orc wizard probably won’t be as good as an elf wizard right out of the gate, but they aren’t really disadvantaged either.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is a complete lack of imagination, and actually proves the point you were debating by @Lyxen .

I had a 5e half-orc wizard. He was phenomenal. Maybe my favorite character to date for 5e. He had strength, and I could occasionally smack things when they got close. He had athletic ability. So when it came time to climb, jump, swim, lift, etc. I didn't worry. He would get dropped and bounce right back up. He could intimidate. All these things made me play the wizard differently than I would have if I had played an elf. And guess what, he was smart. 15 smart. So better than most.

So he had a niche. You just don't see it or you think the only niche there is is to start with a 16.

Yep.

Though one thing I have to say, that in 5e being physically competent wizard is disincentivised quite a bit. One thing I actually miss from older editions is how there were not infinite attack cantrips so the wizard actually had to sometimes fight with weapon like a peasant when they ran out of spells or wanted to conserve them. In 5e if you're not a class that is specifically designed to fight with a weapon, you might as well save your money and not get one.