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

[Maxperson]

They were not more meaningful in 1e and 2e.

As noted above, higher or lower ability scores gave you lower bonuses overall, and were only really meaningful at the top and bottom ends. The ability score modifications for most races would likely not register as significant for the purposes of calculating modifiers. Second, ability scores were much less important to the game overall; two of the most common rolls, attacks and saving throws, got better primarily via your class and were not linked to ability scores in general. Very particular skills, like opening stuck doors, got better with higher ability scores, but in many cases that wasn't so dramatic either (an 18 Str gives you a 16% to bend bars/lift gates). For races, meaningful differences came from ability caps, level restrictions, and class restrictions.

View attachment 142368

View attachment 142369

In 3e and 5e (haven't played 4e) an ability score bonus (from any source) is more impactful because the bonus was not tied to a bell curve, meaning that any +2 bonus gives you a flat +5% chance. This is especially true with bounded accuracy, which is why abilities are capped at 20. Further, everything is tied to ability scores, including attacks, saves, initiative, armor class, hit points. If you really wanted to make a race more distinctive over the length of the game, a better way would probably be to raise the cap on their signature ability stat.

*edit: sorry, missed that you were discussing magic items in particular, although the point about stats being less impactful stands

I disagree. Each single point was a bonus once you hit 15 or 16. Much better than 2 +1s or a +2 in 5e, especially since each stat controlled more things. Sure if you were going from 10 to 11 it wasn't a big deal, but if you crested above 18 the differences were profound.

 

[Maxperson]

Quite true. The fact that stats weren't the most mechanically relevant part of your character was a big part of why not having level-based ASIs worked.

They were if they were 15+. Especially in your prime stat so that you got experience bonuses.

 

[Argyle King]

A whole bunch of additional options, systems, tables, and configuration.

You have a setting-agnostic set of "basic" rules which cover how to play the game and introduce a few vague blurbs about how each basic option is different in each setting.

Responding from phone, so this may be sloppy...

It could be something like:

------------
Elf

Basic traits basic traits blah blah blah...

In the Greyhawk setting, Elves are [few sentences to cover the elevator pitch] and gain the ability to [vague description of capabilities].

In Forgotten Realms....

In Eberron...

In your own games, your group may decide to mix and match options if that better fits the game experience desired by the group.
--------

The setting specific books would include the longer and more elaborate explanations.

Basic would look a little bit like 4E's kinda bare-bones representation. Specific books would have that but then follow it with prose as found in 2E.


The "basic" monster book could work similary:

-----------
Orc

Basic stuff, blah blah blah

Basic stats and abilities.

In the Save the Orcs setting, orcs are kind and gentle souls who have been unfairly... and they're an option for PCs.

In the Orcs Eat Children setting, orcs are pig-faced homicidal maniacs who are sometimes pressed into service under a powerful...

The setting books could then elaborate that Orcs in the first setting maybe replace their basic ability with the "I have a family!" encounter power.

In the second setting, they instead gain the "Meat's Back on the Menu" ability.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I don't concern myself with the popularity of fantasy trends in Gen Z, although I certainly understand how others might.

Story of this goddamn forum. No wonder y'all so out of touch.

Also even if you people aren't, WotC is, and they're a huge part of the demographic that WotC is catering future releases to, so uh, keep malding I guess.

 

[Maxperson]

Story of this goddamn forum. No wonder y'all so out of touch.

Also even if you people aren't, WotC is, and they're a huge part of the demographic that WotC is catering future releases to, so uh, keep malding I guess.

Why is it that you feel the need to insult those who disagree with you?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Fair enough. Use semantics and don't answer the question.

Don't answer what? Can two people in the same campaign have different experiences? One who sees real life connections and one who chooses to ignore them? I'd think that was answered in the second part. Of course people can choose to ignore it.

And, considering my debate with Max, it is very important that the terms don't become muddled.

I keep reading specifics. Not the definition of war, which is what you are implying with your answer here. So if you are saying the player must reference (be able to define) what a war is in order to understand the war going on between the elves and dwarves, okay. You are right. But go back and read what you are saying. That is not what you imply. You imply a specific act of war at the table will create references to a specific act of war in real life.

Okay, how did I do that? Because it was never my intention to say that specific things in the game would reference specific real world events. I thought I was being careful in not implying that, but if you say I did and Max has been saying that same thing, maybe I was less precise than I thought earlier. So, where did you get that impression from?

 

[Hatmatter]

It's time for me to eat some crow. I've been against separating ability score increases from race in D&D for some time now. My main opposition to removing it was because I felt as though it made choosing what race to play matter even less than it matters now.* But my character died tonight during the inaugural session for our new campaign and it's time to roll up a new character. After discussing it a bit with my group, I decided to make a the nephew of our half-elf druid and I will be a Circle of the Spores druid. One of my goals of this campaign is to play things I've never played before and that includes races. I mostly make humans so in the spirit of newness I decided to make an elf. Elves get that great Dexterity bonus but I wanted a Wisdom bonus, dammit! I had the option to use the Tasha rules but I just made a regular elf and took my +2 Dexterity bonus.

But you know what? All those who argued that getting rid of ASI were right. It allows you to make the character you want to make and that's always a good thing. You win. I am a reformed man.

*I know some of you will tell me in your campaigns it makes a difference whether your character is an elf or dwarf. I believe you. But in my experience it usually doesn't matter much.

It is unusual (although not unique) to see someone revisit his or her opinions, and admit to a change in how one looks at something...both in life in general, but especially on Internet forums. My Hatmatter hat is off to you, M. Gibster for such honesty and follow-through.

 

[Malmuria]

I really don't. I mean I don't have nothing against them per se, but to me it always feels far more satisfying to have the power come from the character directly, rather than from the toys they happen to have. So I'd definitely take stat increases over magic items any day. Conan never needed a magic sword!

What about Thor's hammer? Arthur's sword? I like the idea that the stories the PCs create can be told through their distinctive magical items

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What about Thor's hammer? Arthur's sword? I like the idea that the stories the PCs create can be told through their distinctive magical items

Thor is a total badass even without his hammer, he is a literal god, and Artur's main competence, leadership, has nothing to do with Excalibur, and he isn't even that great fighter with it. (At least if we compare him to people like Lancelot or Galahad.) But yes, I get they still are important items for them, but not all characters have such important items nor should they. Perhaps 'legendary heirloom' or some such could be a feat that would give a character a powerful item that is bound to them? Then other characters could just use that feat selection for something else.

 

[Scribe]

Story of this goddamn forum. No wonder y'all so out of touch.

Also even if you people aren't, WotC is, and they're a huge part of the demographic that WotC is catering future releases to, so uh, keep malding I guess.

Many of us have said 'release a new version and setting for this new demographic' and leave those who don't want that direction behind.

One of these threads has many glowing comments about Eberron, but all they have demonstrated is my prior feelings are confirmed, I want nothing to do with Eberron.

Make a new setting, new edition, and go get that zoomer money Wizards.