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

[ad_hoc]

It's hard to make a generalization about what players want. I'm not even sure wanting to optimize in one way or another is about being competitive, but maybe the feeling of having a character who is heroic, and the numbers on the sheet, for whatever reason, make some people feel that way. You could just roll 3d6 for each stat, but maybe people don't like having penalties to any of their stats.

There are people who play D&D as though it was a competitive game.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Or don't. You don't need a charisma bonus to be a good party face, and you don't need a dex bonus to be a good dex rogue.

we never really explore any different stories by looking at races that aren't +dex.

That's entirely your doing, though. You don't need a bonus at all to be a good whatever class. If you're avoiding races that don't give a bonus to the class's prime stat, that's your choice. Unnecessary choices don't need to be accommodated.

And if the baseline for a classes competency will never be +0 in 5e. It literally can't be.

Never said it was.

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.

Cool. Argue against what I say, not what you invent.

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.

You know that "more realistic" doesn't mean "mirrors real life," right? Realism is all over the game. You can in fact have more or less of it. Nothing you just said proves your statement that it doesn't increase realism. Increased realism can still be unrealistic.

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"

This shows a profound misunderstanding of what I actually said.

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

They aren't, though. If it can be learned, it can be learned by anyone, regardless of whether any other race actually has it listed.

 

[clearstream]

Why? I mean, sure, people are free to make such a choice, but to me it seems utterly absurd though. This is a roleplaying game not a competitive wargame.

I'm surprised you're surprised! I guess it shows how different local metas can be.

It is interesting to think about this without the numbers, but rather with a defining statement for each race. "Elves tend to be more dexterous, and High elves tend to be more intelligent than other races." "Dwarves tend toward robust constitutions and mountain dwarves are on average stronger than other races." Interesting, because on the one hand it makes what is problematic about ASIs much clearer (for me at least) and on the other hand armed with such definitions one might well anticipate players allocating their freely assignable ASIs as you might hope.

That's if it is utterly absurd to focus on the mechanical numbers, I mean. Or do you mean that it is not absurd when defining your race, but it is absurd to define wizards by their on average higher intelligence?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The people might not assume that, but the game itself certainly does. Which also conflicts with your idea that the difference between species is larger than the percentages would suggest, because we can show the linear progression of strength in lbs lifted.

And it may be insane at times, but it is the game world presented by the rules. No matter how crazy we find it that a Tiny spider can easily drag 60 lbs., those are the rules we are given for the "reality" of the game.

Right. So the obvious conclusion is that the lift and drag rules are bollocks.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm surprised you're surprised! I guess it shows how different local metas can be.

It is interesting to think about this without the numbers, but rather with a defining statement for each race. "Elves tend to be more dexterous, and High elves tend to be more intelligent than other races." "Dwarves tend toward robust constitutions and mountain dwarves are on average stronger than other races." Interesting, because on the one hand it makes what is problematic about ASIs much clearer (for me at least)

To me the differences between subraces seem problematic as that is far more directly analogous to human ethnicities. But I don't find elves tending to be more agile or dwarves tending to be more tough any more problematic than both tending to be better at seeing in the dark than humans. These are simply things that define these species and a part of what sets them apart from humans.

and on the other hand armed with such definitions one might well anticipate players allocating their freely assignable ASIs as you might hope.

Then why not apply the same with classes? Why not just put all rules in the one same pool and let the players choose what they want. Have some fluff about how clerics usually cast healing spells and fighters usually use better weapons etc. The point is that if in a splat based game splats do not mechanically define and limit things than there is no point having a splat based game.

That's if it is utterly absurd to focus on the mechanical numbers, I mean. Or do you mean that it is not absurd when defining your race, but it is absurd to define wizards by their on average higher intelligence?

To me the main purpose of RPG rules is to have mechanical representation of the fiction. It is not about 'being best' or 'winning'. I want the rules to recognise that half-orcs being big and physically powerful and halflings being really, really small actually is something more than just visuals.

 

[Lyxen]

To me the main purpose of RPG rules is to have mechanical representation of the fiction. It is not about 'being best' or 'winning'. I want the rules to recognise that half-orcs being big and physically powerful and halflings being really, really small actually is something more than just visuals.

I agree. And while I also agree that one can always consider PCs to be outsides the bounds of their races, in the end, adjusting the stats is always done with some element of powergaming in mind. YCMV, and this might be important to some players and some tables (in particular for the competition that it generates), however there are other ways of gaming, and I'm extremely happy with my halfling warlock even if the stat bonus is not "in the right place for a powerful build", he has an incredible history, is very much fun to play, and is known for far much than his possibly unoptimised stats.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

It is a type of game design. I think all editions of D&D have been designed well, even 4e. But they are different, so they bring different things to the table.
And correct, the half-orc wizard is overlooked. That is why it is "against type." People can expound on how the gnome is a better wizard, but that is what I find debatable. But as I have stated, I think I am in the minority.

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?

Since D&D is a group game, and can't be played solo, I see that as the primary mode of learning - from a group. This is especially true for new players. I mean, here is a question - how many new players come into a group having read the PHB? As for experienced players, how many times have you played in a campaign and another player did something and you were like: "Cool! How does that work?" I mean, if a campaign takes a year on average, technically you have really only experienced seven or eight characters to their full potential. So it makes sense you don't know all the subtleties of all race/class combos.
Is it good game design. I think since it is a group game, it is an unavoidable 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.

100% agree. The game culture does say that. And that is what I don't understand. It is only a poor choice is you only look at the +1. That's it. It disregards all the other things a half-orc can bring to the table, including the roleplaying aspect.

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).

That first question is a great one. I never thought of it that way, from a marketing standpoint. It seems to hold weight in my opinion. The second question, and the reference to what 5e does well (I remember the thread) is something for the masses to decide. I think 5e has done a phenomenal job. But, that is just my opinion.

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

That is one of the options I proposed. I am not against it. I just think if you change something so foundational, you should be writing a new edition.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.)

First, Billy was not my example. It was one given (I think by you). I ran with it. It changes nothing though. The need to have that extra +1 is the lion in the closet when you are trying to sleep. It is all anyone thinks about. The data tells us this. Here is a small test, one in which I have done: Run a game at a convention with premade characters. Have a dozen to choose from. Make 6 against type and 6 with race/class attribute synergy. All the rest can be random. Even from their weapons to their armor to their spells. With four-six players, guess which characters get chosen almost all the time? There is clearly a need for players to have this extra +1. Heck, you can give the drow rogue a single dagger and the dragonborn rogue a dual wield with short swords and people don't even blink - they go for the drow.

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.

I am glad. I still do not understand your position exactly. Is their a thesis or summary? (thank you in advance.)

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.

There is no negative light. Saying a player needs something, and then having all the evidence point towards that, is not framing it in a negative light. You might take that word need negatively, but it is not. It is a word used to describe exactly what happens when racial ASIs are implemented, and thus, overwhelm everything else in character design.
And I have no problem correcting someone when they say they don't need it, they just want it because it is there. That's a false statement. If all the characters you build must have that +3 to start with, you need it. And the reason you need it, is because the game's culture or possibly mechanics tells you it is needed. There is no fault with this. There is no right or wrong playstyle or character creation.
So a position of want can't be logically supported. Data suggests race/class synergy appears to be a need.

I have given many examples in which I play synergistically and against type. I have had fun with both. These experiences have led me to an understanding that this need for race/class synergy is a matter of perception. I know you and I disagree with this part.

And for anyone that felt attacked or viewed me saying need in a negative light, you have my apology. I am sorry. It was not my intent to throw shade on anyone's character choices, arguments, or personalities.

 

[Umbran]

Right. So the obvious conclusion is that the lift and drag rules are bollocks.

Yeah. Perhaps giving a strength score to a single tiny spider is bollocks.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's hard to make a generalization about what players want. I'm not even sure wanting to optimize in one way or another is about being competitive, but maybe the feeling of having a character who is heroic, and the numbers on the sheet, for whatever reason, make some people feel that way. You could just roll 3d6 for each stat, but maybe people don't like having penalties to any of their stats.

Can confirm, I greatly do not like have negative modifiers.