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

[Yaarel]

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.

I am saying, the highest ability bonus can be "needed" for flavor reasons, for certain concepts, but not for mechanical reasons. Mediocre works fine mechanically, but is wrong for certain narrative descriptions.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I am saying, the highest bonus can be "needed" for flavor reasons, but not for mechanical reasons.

Oh, ok, I do see that distinction. An emotional* need, rather than a character viability need. Is that it?

*And I don't mean "emotional" in any kind of negative way.

 

[ad_hoc]

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:


2e:


1e:


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).




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

You say the previous editions were more direct I say they were harsher.

A character in 5e is perfectly good and capable if played against type. This while successfully encouraging players to make characters 'on type' if they have no particular reason not to otherwise.

This is a great balance.

In 5e the 'punishment' is largely illusionary.

 

[Scribe]

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?

I believe this to be true, absolutely.

Many of the things which some folks take issue with exist almost certainly because Wizards wanted to have a hook to bring in players that would either have stuck with older editions, or their competition, such as the 4e vs Pathfinder situation.

I would further argue that the inclusion of these features allowed for an initial (and prolonged) positive assessment of 5e that snowballed into the success seen today.

Is the game big enough to take a shift away from those things in a new Edition?

Probably.

Is it worth the loss of players who would stick with something else or leave?

I don't know.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have long thought that a potential 6E would make feats non optional, make it so that ASIs cannot be traded for feats and have most standard classes gain them at levels 4 (alongside an ASI), 6, 10, 14 and 18. That may be too much power, so a game may need to adjust for that, but considering that DMs can hand out a feat by their own discretion this may not be too huge of a concern.

Then, you would remove 'half-feats' and make them full feats and just adjust their power.

Fighters would get compensation in that they would go along a get a choice whether to get a feat or ASI for every time they can get one and a different level growth so that they don't get potentially too much more.

Then variant human and customised origin would remove gaining a feat at a start and humans would be reworked to actually be interesting mechanically.

Now THAT'S a question: how do you rework humans to actually be interesting mechanically? I cant think of a way that doesn't fall off of a cliff one way or the other.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes it does. As you are completely wrong below.

If you agree your post is wrong to a nearly insulting degree, maybe you should apologize then. Or maybe read more closely before you start agreeing by saying "yes it does"

There are many ways to play a rogue and as the party face is one of them. A tiefling rogue likely wants to play a social game, so +2 dex is NOT what he wants.

And you are hitting the nail on the head and calling it bread.

You are assuming that because the player is choosing a tiefling, they want to be a rogue face. That is because tieflings get a bonus to charisma. This is literally the problem we are having, pigeonholing races into roles no matter what.

You are literally highlighting the choice that many of us are protesting. That if we want t play a "face" character, we go wkith a charisma boosting race, and if we want a "stealthy" character then we go for a dexterity boosting race. I don't know how unconcious this bias is for you, but getting rid of that bias is part of what we want.

The baseline assumption should be 0. If you want to optimize for every little extra +, then pick a race that gives you that bonus. There are lots of races that give dex and multiple races that give charisma, and a bunch that give both. It's not hard to find one that will give you what you want.

Of course it isn't hard to find a race that gives us the exact numbers we want. But that isn't the point. The point isn't that we can't find + Dex races to play rogues and rangers, it is that because we can and it is so easy, we never really explore any different stories by looking at races that aren't +dex.

And if the baseline for a classes competency will never be +0 in 5e. It literally can't be. If you use point buy and spread your points as evenly as possible, you will end up +1's on everything, and likely a +2 on one thing, since you have 3 pts left over. Then, if that one thing is the thing you want your character to be good at, and you pick a +2 ASI race for that attritbute, then you get a +3.

The proficiency gives you a +2 to that, making a total of +5. You have to actively work to make your primary stat for attacks and saves a +3. So, no, +0 is not the baseline. It literally cannot be. And, all we are asking, is that by recognizing that the +5 is the standard, that we break out of this idea that only certain races should be able to meet this standard at level 1.

Prove that statement.

Because the difference between men and women in the human race is larger than the 5% difference between goliaths and halflings. And that's the biggest difference you can get. IF you have a human compared to any other "species" of playable character, it is a 2.5% difference at best. A 2.5% difference IRL is the difference between being able to lift 50 lbs and being able to lift... 51.25 lbs. It is literally the difference between lifting a bag of dog food and lifting a bag of dog food with a frozen roll of beef in your hand. It is nothing.

And this is the difference that people claim defines the species, makes them more than a human in a rubber mask. But it isn't. And it gets worse, if you really stop and think about it.

Remember that math I just did, where the Adventurer of an unknown race had 12's in every stat, then a 14? That is adventurers (according to your realism meter) being equal to the average of every single race in every single stat. Your completely average non-race adventurer is just as dexterous and grace as the average elf, just as tough as the averge dwarf, just as strong as the average orc, just as smart as the average gnome, wiser and more perceptive than about the average anything, and just as charismatic as the average tiefling. With one of those stats being superior to the average of that race. In fact, if we make our average adventurer a human, then they are numerically superior to the average anything in any stat. 13's across the board with a 15.

Except, this is an unoptimized and pretty poor PC. +1 in anything except their primary which is +2 which is definitely low for whatever class they take. A person who is superior in every way to the average person of any possible race in their biological stat superiorities... and they are a poor adventurers. Not helpless, certainly they are playable, but they aren't even meeting the standard numbers, and most people who had this character wouldn't be even attempting to play a few different classes, because there is no way they could be up to par. A monk or a paladin with these stats? Being that MAD? It would never happen unless the player is specifically trying to make their life harder to "play against type"

And this is the major disconnect. If you assume that 10's are average with 12 being superior... then adventurers already break the scale. A character isn't even considered strong until they have a 16 in strength. Let alone impressively strong. And the game supports this. If you want to play a half-orc barbarian, and you use the standard array, and follow the advice in the PHB, then you are going to end up with a 17 strength and a 15 Con... and if you are smart about it, you end up with a 16 strength and 16 con. And that is the basics of the game, as presented by the game. The starting line isn't 10 for PCs, it is 16. Which blows this supposed realism out of the water, because the game is telling you to match race to class to make a basic character.

Con literally doesn't cover that, but hey, why go with what the game has said hit points represent since 1e when you can just declare the opposite.

But becomer tougher and getting hp is luck, you said it wasn't physicality. So, when I raise my con and raise my hp, it is luck increasing isn't it? Or maybe skill. Or, is it possible that it is physicality? Which then makes is so that Tough raising your hp might be tied to physicality? But then it would need to be tied to con, or it would be "nonsensical"

Well, it is nonsense either way it seems.

It doesn't mean the race is graceful or dexterous, though. Learned skills can't represent that.

Why not, if they are the only people capable of learning it?

Yes, really. Absolutely none of that was anywhere near anything I've said or argued. One guy here has been joking about it, but that's it. Step back and get some perspective, because you've lost it badly.

Don't think I have. After all, you are still caring about this because you roleplay an elf that cares about them being "more graceful than humans". Pretty hard to put a different spin on that ball.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Charisma approximate domain of spiritedness and zealous confidence (justified or not), and Wisdom the Domain of more cautious Discipline. I think earlier editions that combined the two for will power got it right.

I REALLY want to take wisdom, roll it into Charisma to make will and then take perception, call it awareness and make it a stat.

Wisdom is just too confused to make any sense, and getting awareness into its own stat would be so much better than making it a skill by itself.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

An odd idea... but not neccesarily a bad one. It would certainly spice up spellcasting, but I think it would end up in a lot of the same places as we currently have.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I wouldn't say it is "needed" as in "my character is unplayable without it" but I would certainly say it is the baseline that the game pushes us towards. Everything in the character creation and class rules, and an observation on the underlining math of the system makes it very clear that 5e was designed expecting you have a 16 in your primary score.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because the difference between men and women in the human race is larger than the 5% difference between goliaths and halflings. And that's the biggest difference you can get. IF you have a human compared to any other "species" of playable character, it is a 2.5% difference at best. A 2.5% difference IRL is the difference between being able to lift 50 lbs and being able to lift... 51.25 lbs. It is literally the difference between lifting a bag of dog food and lifting a bag of dog food with a frozen roll of beef in your hand. It is nothing.

And this is the difference that people claim defines the species, makes them more than a human in a rubber mask. But it isn't. And it gets worse, if you really stop and think about it.

I don't think people generally assume that D&D stats work in such linear and mathematically coherent fashion. They work in some vague 'bigger is better' scale. Like most people don't really assume that in the fiction frost giant is just a bit more than twice as strong than an average human. That would be insane. And like those 13 points between average and human and a frost giant represent far larger difference in fiction than mere percents would indicate, so do those two points between a goliath and halfling.

And I have really wanted to avoid the gender difference discussion, but my logic is reverse to yours: as the game doesn't measure difference between genders but measures (without Tasha) a difference between different species, any difference that is represented by ASIs is in the setting a larger difference than exist between the human sexes.