D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Lyxen]

Well that's a bit hypocritical.
You can'tsay "Those are the rules. Variants are for powergamers. You just want powergame" for one thing and "The rules are bad. I want a variant but I'm no powergamer" for another

As I've clearly demonstrated, the Floating ASIs are obviously only a powergaming option. No-one has ever provided a single different reason for them, it's always "I want a +1" because it's more powerful that way. I'm just clearly labelling them that way so that people cannot miss why they are doing it. Note that there is nothing inherently wrong about it being powergaming, by the way, but it's always better to be honest about it.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Cults of Terror, yes. It was the Crimson Bat that put real fear in the PCs. It's horrific nature and placement in the cults of terror felt like it unmasked the Seven Mothers (in case anyone was in doubt). And the way that - IIRC - it could move along the glow-line - amplified its oppressive implications. I didn't take the Imperials to be all cut of one cloth, but for adventurers on the borderlands they figured as a constraining, frustrating and sometimes hostile force. Were I running the campaign now, I'd make them sometimes helpful, also.

 

[Minigiant]

As I've clearly demonstrated, the Floating ASIs are obviously only a powergaming option. No-one has ever provided a single different reason for them, it's always "I want a +1" because it's more powerful that way. I'm just clearly labelling them that way so that people cannot miss why they are doing it. Note that there is nothing inherently wrong about it being powergaming, by the way, but it's always better to be honest about it.

I gave one.

To counter the poor ability score balancing.

 

[Maxperson]

There is nothing wrong with ultraconservatism.

The isse is that you can't say "Thee are thousands of D&D settings" and "D&D is for everyone" but lock races into strict archetypes.

It's probably a good thing that in the entire history of the game, this has never been the case then. Despite racial bonuses and penalties being present for most of that history. D&D settings have been making changes to the races since 1e.

What 5e did however is made it harder to mingle your racial aspects with your class aspects if you are not playing a stereotype.

The Minotaur rogue can't use their horns to sneak attack.

This is up to the DM. Rulings over rules is the primary rule of the edition. The DM is free to houserule such a change, and I'd certainly allow it. So would all of the DMs I play with.

The Minotaur wizard can't channel lightning out their horns.

This isn't even a thing. There's nothing in RAW that says that a lightning bolt spell has to come out of a finger or hand.

"A stroke of lightning forming a line 100 feet long and 5,feet wide blasts out from you in a direction you choose.mEach creature in the line must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 8d6 lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."

If you want the fluff to have it discharge from your horns, go for it. That bit of fluff doesn't change the mechanics of the spell at all.

The Minotaur cleric can't enchant their horns with divine power then attack with them.

Why not? Even by the silly Sage Advice ruling, a minotaur paladin can smite with his horns. Why can't they be used for other things as well?

 

[clearstream]

As I've clearly demonstrated, the Floating ASIs are obviously only a powergaming option. No-one has ever provided a single different reason for them, it's always "I want a +1" because it's more powerful that way. I'm just clearly labelling them that way so that people cannot miss why they are doing it. Note that there is nothing inherently wrong about it being powergaming, by the way, but it's always better to be honest about it.

I can't find where you've demonstrated that. You should also consider that just because you have your explanation of others' behaviour, doesn't mean that your explanation is right. Particularly when the others concerned are telling you that it is not right.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I am seeing some similar arguments popping up from the same posters from other threads that have been shut down because of those arguments...

I challenge folks in this thread to NOT post the same arguments they've made before.

Ultimately, you're asking the same question "what should we do with racial ASI's?" and expecting different answers this week.

The camps are set: ASIs are a useful part of worldbuilding, and therefore should be fixed by race; or they're not, and they shouldn't. Since the basic premise is entirely a matter of taste, anyone who's found their answer isn't likely to change their mind.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think that size and strength alone would, no. We can't make much progress on this seeing as we lack evidence to the contrary.

It absolutely would affect their cultures. The profound size differences would alter how those races see the world and threats, and how their cultures adapt to those differences.

 

[clearstream]

You're reading too much into the "no" camp. I've seen a number of people in this thread say that they just plain don't like bonuses and prefer to cap things at 18, not that they don't want ASIs because of racial stereotypes. Even a lot of the floating ASI people are just saying that they want to be able to place stats for class, and use other racial ability to set the stereotype of say dexterous elves. We don't know at all that a majority do not want to lock characters into racial stereotypes.

You and @FrozenNorth make good points. Another way to characterise the data might be to say that the counts for and against - fixed or floating - look roughly equal. And for, against, and none, likewise. Seems like the debate will likely grind on.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There is a huge influx of new players to the game that find rules "boring and hard". These people want 5e to be more "free form" aka easier to play. There are those of use who recognize the roots of the game are based on a brutal game. Chars died often. Failure was omnipresent.

In classical philosophy, this is known formally as the "Kids On My Lawn" argument.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I gave one.

To counter the poor ability score balancing.

Certainly that only matters on if you care about character power though? Like sure, investing in 'wrong' scores makes your character weaker. But that is only a problem if you see a character being weaker as a problem. Theoretically I wish things were better balanced, but then again, this is not a competitive game, so it is not such a big deal. It actually doesn't matter if some characters are not as powerful as others, as long as the more powerful ones don't completely overshadow the others.

Overall I value verisimilitude over balance, so if it necessitates that goliaths are better barbarians than halflings, then that is fine by me. Granted, ideally there would be agility-based barbarian build that would let halflings to be effective and fierce anklebiters without being bizarrely strong superhobbits.