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

[Yaarel]

I've had this same conversation here (I think) regarding Sorcerer/Warlock.

To step back a few.

Paladin and Bard? No problem. Both are Cha casters for different reasons, but I don't feel it's a problem.

Sorcerer as Con. I can see it, but Cha is (as a caster stat) more than persuasion to me, it's more an undefinable force of personality. Not Intellectual, not even a question of Will (Wisdom?) but something innately part of that person, the soul?

The Warlock on the other hand, is where I would go Con.

Your not going to persuade an eldritch being for power, it's not your power at all, you don't have an understanding at an intellectual level, or even have a higher power to appeal to.

To me it's stolen power that you are a conduit for, and I just think it fits.

The Sorcerer is more explicitly about the body, the bloodline. Even Sorcerer psionic options are because the body itself is aberrant. So Constitution as a body ability can make sense.

For me, the Warlock is more about the "soul". Thus a mental ability makes sense. That said, the flavor of the Warlock is kinda all over the place, and a nonmental ability might work. That said, with the aberrant flavor, the trope of being the last sane person, suggests discernment to resist losing oneself within the magic of the bargain, whence a mental ability after all.

 

[Scribe]

I can see what you are getitng at fiction wise, but that would require a redesign of Warlock to be a defense oriented caster, as having 20+ Con as as Warlock with a d8 hit dice, taking the average is comparable to having 16+ Con as a Barbarian with a d12 hit dice, taking the average, at level 8 (assuming atleast a starting 16 in Con for both and assuming the Warlock focuses on getting Con to 20 and the Barbarian focuses on getting Strength to 20).

Basically, the optimal build taking aside skills would be to invest in Dex and Con as a Warlock and become pretty difficult to hit outside of saves and being able to frontline easily (Hexblade becomes stupid attractive in a LOT of parties thanks to this). In addition, Warlock would be an attractive caster class in a lot of scenarios, depending on sub-class; the more martial or frontline Clerics may like this combination, for example.

For sure it would require a rework. I've got an unfinished write up somewhere on it.

Some day.

 

[Yaarel]

It isn't just 'choose which to use' it is that different weapons use different stat (apart some which can use either) so a dex fighter and strength fighter at least have somewhat different style and probably different rules too.

That occurs to me too. The choice of ability might interact with certain options.

I really want ability score so mean something, so I'm not a fan of 'choose whichever and then it works just he same'. Again, at that point you might just as well get rid of the ability scores.

Now one potentially interesting way to do this (but it would be a big redesign) to have different spells to use different stats. So illusions and enchantment spells might use charisma, healing and communing spells could use wisdom etc. And of course some spells might be 'finesse spells' and could choose between different stats. So that way your caster would play differently depending on their casting stats.

3e briefly experimented with different (psionic) spells keying off of different abilities. But it was widely hated. They completely redesigned it almost immediately. Because one can use different methods to achieve the same effect, it made less sense anyway.

Consider the Wizard. The Enchanter can be Charisma and the school can reward Charisma. In my view, the Illusionist in the sense of hyperrealistic simulations is all about Intelligence, and using Intelligence for both Perception and Deception checks (which I think should be keying off of Intelligence anyway). The Bladesinger could be one of seveveral stats. All would cast spells equally competent using their casting ability. But the school might favor certain abilites.

 

[Bill Zebub]

See, you dont need the extra speed to be effective, but it does make you MORE effective. That's what I'm saying.

Yeah I have never once argued that +3 in a new character is “needed”, just that it’s highly attractive. Maybe even more attractive than is logically justified.

Nor do I see other people arguing that it is needed. That just seems to be an exaggeration to discredit the anti-ASI position.

 

[Campbell]

Yeah I have never once argued that +3 in a new character is “needed”, just that it’s highly attractive. Maybe even more attractive than is logically justified.

Nor do I see other people arguing that it is needed. That just seems to be an exaggeration to discredit the anti-ASI position.

Exactly. There are very few cases where the entirety of the rest of the kit provided by a race/heritage will have as much of an impact as having the right ability scores for the build you are going for, even if the impact of those ability scores is somewhat modest. I personally would like features to have more of an impact and have a bit more flexibility on ASIs.

 

[Garthanos]

It isn't just 'choose which to use' it is that different weapons use different stat (apart some which can use either) so a dex fighter and strength fighter at least have somewhat different style and proba

There is a saying that goes winners play to their strengths. I take that to mean heroes too. I assume the attribute you use does imply a different style and that is not about the weapon but the training. And that means a different style to accomplish the same end goal. To take a slightly mythical comparison ninjato and katana are not very different physically styled (both likely longswords) but they are used with techniques distinct in how much body weight is put behind the weapons normal weapons stroke (ironically taking more grace to put more body weight without revealing openings)... and one may use longer dragging strokes although both end up similar when charging (ignore details) many of these details can be incorporated by saying one is dex style and the other strength would those be the one using them or actually the nature of the weapon? Since D&D makes attacking pretty bland now without distinctive maneuvers in earlier editions to me using the same attribute makes it even more so IMHO. Because you know having poetically named moves like germanic knights often did like the "Boar racing down hill" technique is bad wrong fun we get I hit it with my sword.

 

[Scott Christian]

I have yet to see anybody in this thread describe a character without a 17 as "worthless", "not viable", or "ineffectual." But I'm fairly new so maybe it's an older discussion you're thinking of? Or from somewhere else?

Also, if you look at D&DB data, it's not the 17, it's the +3. Apparently for most people (including me) the goal is to start with a 16 in your primary stat. The only real advantage of a 17 is that at level 4 you can either take a split feat (one that gives +1) or if you have another odd attribute you can raise them both.

"Not viable" was this thread. The other two were previous threads. I will admit, it could have been the same person. I do not know.

And the 17 is just a way of saying +3. I generally refer to it as people needing the +1. But I didn't want anyone confusing that with the +1 ASI to a specific attribute. Hence, why I just said 17. I should have been more clear.

I do find it odd that you apparently don't feel any pressure to optimize race/class combinations, and don't think the ASI really matters for anything other than flavor, but yet you seem to have very strong opinions about how other racial attributes benefit certain class combinations.

Umm... I stated ASIs are extremely important in developing archetypes, building a motif around the race and their culture, and in turn, helping create the setting that is, D&D. I think that entails a little more than flavor. I did state that no matter what you do with racial feats, skill bonuses, backgrounds, etc. none of it will matter as long as the extra +1 is there. Because that is what people focus on. Then I stated all the ways half-orcs get to be awesome wizards. But for some reason, all those good reasons fall out of focus when a player doesn't get to start with that extra +1.

It seems to me you are missing something big here.
First, as I just noted, for most people it seems to be the +3, not the 17.
Second, you're right, nobody absolutely "needs" the +3. That's hyperbole. But looking at the data, an overwhelming number of people take that combination.
Third...and this is the big thing you are missing...you don't need to be aware of or concerned about what other people are playing to know that +1 to your primary stat is a good thing.

You do need to be aware of it. And for most newer players they learn about it from the people they are playing with. I have watched it unfold dozens of times. The player that wants to play the halfling wizard, then someone points out they can be "stronger" with a high elf, and boom, they change their character. This has literally happened dozens of time right before my eyes. If you want to insist that experienced players out there can take it upon themselves and see it right away, sure, I'll buy that. But it doesn't change the outcome - the need of the +1 outweighs everything else.
And according to Wizard's data, many of the players now are new.

For some reason you keep insisting that basic math is actually jealousy. What does this accomplish? Do you think it bolsters your argument to accuse other players of pettiness?

I have never used the word jealousy. I used the word need. There is a huge difference. One connotes envy or suspicion, two negative emotions. The other connotes a desire. Desires are what makes people change their race because it is not optimal for their class.

Yes, I agree that it is impacting poor design to a large degree. That's the whole point.

It is the point. It is impacting something you think was poorly designed. Can you see the other person's point of view, that it is impacting something that was well designed? Or must they see it your way?

Yes, it absolutely is, unless you play in an outlier campaign with very little or no combat. (And, if you do, your stance on this is more understandable.)

My stance should be understandable regardless of the campaign I play. ASIs had a meaningful affect on the D&D setting through archetype creation, racial motif, and the part of the game where players like to turn knobs and adjust the dials. Not only that, for some players it gave a forced perspective, and that perspective allowed them to play against type or made them view a class differently, thus roleplaying the class differently than they would have ever imagined had they had the primary stats in their attributes be the same as everyone else.

These are the things that are removed when the ASIs were removed. For better or worse, I really can't say. But I can at least look at the people on that side and say, I understand. Just like I can say to the people that want floating ASIs, I understand the need to have that +3. It really seems to play a huge role in how the character feels at the table. And it does. It feels different, despite the minimal percentage increase.

That is the point - being able to see both sides.

 

[Argyle King]

It's not even true, though. You can have a dex skill rogue, a charisma skill rogue and a intelligence skill rogue. Half the stats are useful, depending on your character concept. And there are tons of races to fill all of those stats without ever needing to go to floating

This is much worse than racial ASIs as it is far narrower.

The ability I mentioned would be a replacement for racial weapon proficiency.

But I am using similar thinking in trying to look at how the game could get away from being based around +N as a way of showing power and advancement.

In a similar way, I would prefer that magic items have abilities and effects rather than using +N so much.

In getting away from that, I also believe that some of the issues with HP bloat could go away. There would be less need to continually stack numbers.

 

[Malmuria]

Umm... I stated ASIs are extremely important in developing archetypes, building a motif around the race and their culture, and in turn, helping create the setting that is, D&D. I think that entails a little more than flavor. I did state that no matter what you do with racial feats, skill bonuses, backgrounds, etc. none of it will matter as long as the extra +1 is there. Because that is what people focus on. Then I stated all the ways half-orcs get to be awesome wizards. But for some reason, all those good reasons fall out of focus when a player doesn't get to start with that extra +1.

You do need to be aware of it. And for most newer players they learn about it from the people they are playing with. I have watched it unfold dozens of times. The player that wants to play the halfling wizard, then someone points out they can be "stronger" with a high elf, and boom, they change their character. This has literally happened dozens of time right before my eyes. If you want to insist that experienced players out there can take it upon themselves and see it right away, sure, I'll buy that. But it doesn't change the outcome - the need of the +1 outweighs everything else.
And according to Wizard's data, many of the players now are new.

Are you saying this is good game design? Honest question, maybe it is. If what you are saying is correct, there are a number of perfectly viable character types--half-orc wizard, etc--that do not get chosen because of the extra bonus a race-class synergy would get you if you played gnome or high elf instead. Further, you seem to be saying that the way new players find out about this synergy is generally not through reading the phb, but through a play culture where newer players get convinced to "optimize" in this regard. It's very possible that's accurate, but again is that good game design? The game and ensuing play culture seems to be saying, "don't play half-orc wizards unless you consciously want to play against type." That's a totally fine game-design prerogative, but this seems to me a pretty roundabout way of achieving that goal. Previous editions were more direct about their design goals in various ways.

Consider, for example, 3e:

+2 Strength, –2 Intelligence, –2 Charisma: Half-orcs are strong, but their orc lineage makes them dull and crude...
Favored Class: Barbarian. A multiclass half-orc’s barbarian class does not count when determining whether he suffers an XP penalty (see Experience for Multiclass Characters, page 56). Ferocity runs in a half-orc’s veins.

2e:

The restrictions are intended to channel players into careers that make sense for the various races. Dwarves are, to a certain extent, anti-magical…they can’t be wizards. Halflings…lack the devotion and physical will to be druids.

1e:

A half-orc character can become a cleric (maximum of 4th level), a fighter (maximum of 10th level), a thief (maximum of 8th level), or an assassin.

All these editions are relatively clear about their design priorities and explain how the implemented mechanics relate to the central theme of the game. I have been arguing that racial ASI is a legacy of the design and themes of these earlier games, and one that is atrophied by comparison. I would further argue that the themes these earlier editions wanted to reinforce, while still extremely relevant to many players, stand alongside many other traditions of fantasy that people want to incorporate into their game (arguably, the people interested in other genres would be better served by different games, but that's another topic).

Maybe the benefit of racial ASI is that allows those interested in the themes of earlier editions to buy into 5e, while also leaving plenty of room for expansions into other genres? Or maybe this means that, as in so many other instances, 5e is a "middle ground" kind of game that does nothing particularly well? This relates to the recent discussion here and on Matt Colville's channel of what 5e does well, as in, what's it's specific niche (can't find it now).

These are the things that are removed when the ASIs were removed. For better or worse, I really can't say. But I can at least look at the people on that side and say, I understand. Just like I can say to the people that want floating ASIs, I understand the need to have that +3. It really seems to play a huge role in how the character feels at the table. And it does. It feels different, despite the minimal percentage increase.

That is the point - being able to see both sides.

There's a third side, which is just getting rid of it all together.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I have never used the word jealousy. I used the word need. There is a huge difference. One connotes envy or suspicion, two negative emotions. The other connotes a desire. Desires are what makes people change their race because it is not optimal for their class.

You pretty explicitly said that it all just really means "I need it because Billy has it". How is that not jealousy? (Well, technically envy, but the meaning of jealous has evolved.)

It is the point. It is impacting something you think was poorly designed. Can you see the other person's point of view, that it is impacting something that was well designed? Or must they see it your way?
...
These are the things that are removed when the ASIs were removed. For better or worse, I really can't say. But I can at least look at the people on that side and say, I understand.
...
That is the point - being able to see both sides.

Ok, so I just want to point out that when I joined this thread I asked a lot of questions trying to understand and clarify a position that doesn't make sense to me. Although I still don't agree with, or share, that position (or its underlying roots), I do think I understand it. At least better.

What I have not done over the dozens of pages since then is:
- Try to reframe that position, or the people who hold it, in a negative light
- Try to explain 'splain to people who hold that position what they actually mean, instead of what they say they mean
- Try to argue why that position can't be logically supported

I could. I'll admit, it's tempting. But it's also disrespectful and, well, the very opposite of trying to see both sides.