D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[clearstream]

And this is just another demonstration. If you had other uses, they would have been provided by now.

And likewise, I say the burden is on you to provide anything other than assertions. If you could, we should have seen them by now.

You disliked the example of Dexterity - because you were forced to concede it amounted to more than only +1 on one or two rolls. And I explained cases where Intelligence and Charisma mattered. Especially powerfully because the two could be met by one race pick, traditionally.

For Strength and Constitution, a good example is mountain dwarf and half orc. The bonuses they get can increase both modifiers by +1. How does that play out? A fighter at 5th level will have 5 hit points from that +1, almost a level more than without. They add it to hit dice expended when resting so they recover more hit points at each short rest. An Eldritch Knight will have better concentration. The strength bonus will apply to both the attacks a 5th level fighter gets, and all three at 11th. All of those attacks will be more likely to hit, and deal more damage. The fighter is more likely to be able to wear plate without penalty, giving them +2 AC over chainmail, or 10' better speed. Their athletics will have a higher minimum roll, and they will be better at grappling and shoving - particularly relevant if they choose a feat like Shield Master. They can jump slightly further and slightly higher, without rolling. They can hold their breath longer, go without food or water longer, cope with heat and cold more easily.

In my post up-thread, and here, I show exactly what I claimed, which is that your characterisation of '+1 on a few rolls' is inadequate. It fails to consider that a character can hit the +1 threshold for two abilities at once, not just one, and that ability modifiers have many mechanical consequences throughout the system.

 

[clearstream]

Real world cultures differ drastically by living just a few miles from one another due to how they interact with geographical features, flora and fauna. Cultures are incredibly fluid and are affected by even slight differences. That's evidence that size would affect culture. I'm willing to bet that if we had an anthropologist here, that anthropologist could point to real world cultures where size made a difference in the development of that culture.

We are speaking only of one species - humans - who have divergent cultures notwithstanding. I'd bet an anthropologist could show how culture produced differences in phenotype.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is true and good. But the primary problem that arises with this style is inevitably, one type of fighter is a bit stronger. Then it's a war or race to improve the other type, then that one becomes stronger and a group complains about their fighter now is worthless or ineffective.

I find people always think they want balance, when often what they want is uniqueness.

There is a huge trend toward individuality these days, across cultures. Everyone wants to be a unique snowflake; advertising and social media especially showcase this. Given that global trend, it makes sense that this attitude would bleed over into TTRPG.

 

[clearstream]

There is a huge trend toward individuality these days, across cultures. Everyone wants to be a unique snowflake; advertising and social media especially showcase this. Given that global trend, it makes sense that this attitude would bleed over into TTRPG.

Hard to see whether that is an argument for or against floating ASIs...

[EDIT be interested to know where the mountain of evidence for snowflaking is, too?]

 

[Henadic Theologian]

If they did that, they could not pretend that feats were optional.


The thread is about what we like, not what is. And in terms of what I like, it can absolutely be assumed (as a second choice; first choice is just to use ASIs as noted above).


I voted in the poll, and I am certainly not in any sort of camp that has "race" or culture determining ability scores. Since I was careful to exclude the red queen race in my post, no one thing would determine anything. Species would contribute, provided it was not called "race". Culture would not.


I would be utterly astonished if whenever 6e rolls around it does not swap out race. My preference would be for "species", but "ancestry" and "lineage" work too.

_
glass.

Easy solution, don't make feats optional.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Hard to see whether that is an argument for or against floating ASIs...

[EDIT be interested to know where the mountain of evidence for snowflaking is, too?]

Well, it's certainly my opinion, but watching any advertising on any streaming service that has ads was enough for me to see it.

Personally, I prefer fixed ASIs. But this trend I'm describing would encourage the individuality that floating ASIs champion, so I guess that's what I'm saying.

 

[Maxperson]

More likely: as they get better, more reliable access to food, they get taller, and use the weapons best adapted to penetrating their opponent's armor.

The genetic limits on height are a minor variable. For example, in the 20's Franz Boaz noted that the children of European immigrants to the US were almost universally taller that their parents, regardless of where in Europe they immigrated from. At the time, being poor in a city in the US meant more and better food than being poor in a rural village in Europe.

Basically, if you moves a group of !Kung (The shortest tribe in Africa, IIRC) to Northern Kenya and had them live like Maasi, they wouldn't change how they herded, they'd just get taller as their diet switched to more red meat and tubers. The main cultural shift would be towards longer bows and thinking about cattle a lot more.

There's some genetics to height, but it's mostly nurture, in humans. Which, presumably, wouldn't apply to halflings living in the mountain alongside goliaths.

If I had to guess: one of the bigger externally-selective differences would be the relative size of animals. To a halfling, a horse is huge and way too big to ride like humans to; you'd be unable to grip with your legs. You have to ride them like humans ride elephants, with howdahs or some other kind of platform. You could put a whole house on the back of an actual elephant, and you could comfortably ride many smaller animals like dogs, goats, or ostriches. All of which do not work quite like horses, which would have knock-on effects on a number of things, like trade, war, and the meaning of wealth.

Goliaths would be hard-pressed to find any kind of riding animal, so I'd expect them to just not do that. They also wouldn't use many beasts of burden given that the ones who are big enough to be worthwhile are also too big to go many places (they need a lot of food) and are a lot slower than horses. So you'd have an entire unmounted culture, who'd learn to live with only things you can personally carry (or maybe put on a big goat), which in turn starts having knock-on effects.

First off, thanks for the information.

With regard to the differences in halflings and goliaths, wouldn't those differences in what they can ride, amounts of food, etc. also have an impact on their traditions, holidays, etc.? Halflings might develop some sort of dog bonding ceremony for the coming of age.

 

[Morrus]

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) ?

I'm sorry, but all of this is only about people deciding to be offended, sometimes not even for themselves. but on behalf of other people who could not care less, and for reasons that have nothing to do with reality. The most incredible example I've seen was of someone of mixed parentage, who decided to be offended at AD&D because half-orcs had -2 to charisma and who thought that he was being punished for wanting to be a social character, totally forgetting that, in the book, half-elves are listed ahead of half-orcs, are also of mixed parentage and extremely social. It's total cherry-picking, with no rhyme or reason, just seeking reasons to be offended. Just leave the game alone, especially 5e, it's not inherently offensive to anyone. Now, if some bad people are using the game to offend, it's because they are bad and want to offend, don't blame the game...

This forum isn’t the place for your extended rants on how people “choose to be offended”. Take them elsewhere, please.

 

[clearstream]

Well, it's certainly my opinion, but watching any advertising on any streaming service that has ads was enough for me to see it.

Personally, I prefer fixed ASIs. But this trend I'm describing would encourage the individuality that floating ASIs champion, so I guess that's what I'm saying.

Oh, whereas I see floating ASIs as less individual: everyone gets the same choice. Not one player picks dwarf and gets A, and another player picks halfling and gets B, and a third picks elf and gets C. Everyone gets A, so to speak.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh, whereas I see floating ASIs as less individual: everyone gets the same choice. Not one player picks dwarf and gets A, and another player picks halfling and gets B, and a third picks elf and gets C. Everyone gets A, so to speak.

In practice, I believe it does break down that way; everyone becomes more similar. But the advertised appeal of floating is that you can build your character exactly the way you want, without being tied to your race. And THAT idea absolutely caters to the idea of "I'm special and unique" that is so prevalent today.