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

[ad_hoc]

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.

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

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.

1. Convention goers represent 0.01% of the player population. They are irrelevant.

2. Given the choice between someone else's weird character and a classic archetype I am going with the latter 99% of the time. This is the design working well and as intended.

 

[Lyxen]

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

It's a generalistic system that is designed mostly around human-like adventurers. Previous editions and in particular 3e/PF have given a false sense of what the game could be by trying to combine a roleplaying game with a combat game, trying for "complete rules" that could resolve every situation including the stats of a single spider vs. those of a gargantuan dragon. It did not work because it became quickly so complex that it was abusable and ultimately unplayable. 4e then tried for an almost pure combat game with formalised rules and restrictions, so much that the game lost its openness. In addition to slaughtering too many sacred cows, that killed the game as well.

This is summarised very nicely in the SAC: "The DM is key. Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D. The direction we chose for the current edition was to lay a foundation of rules that a DM could build on, and we embraced the DM’s role as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t."

So in 5e, they went back to the previous formula of something that can cater for many tastes as much as a compromise can, and it was a small miracle, it worked and took the world by surprise with millions of gamers finding D&D cool again.

There will always be extremists of all sides that are going to want the game to be modified to be perfect for their taste, too bad for the lazy ones who cannot do it on their own (or with the support of a huge community almost always ready to help) and who think that they have the slightest influence on the direction that the game is taking. The devs are rightly confirmed in the choices that they made in the past because the game started really strongly and is still going extremely well. And I am pretty sure that, with the amount of effort and playtesting that was necessary to make 5e and which would, in the end, very probably end up with the same kind of compromise, combined with the fact that as soon as a new edition would be announced, the sales of 5e would come crashing down, no new edition or major change is coming soon.

Personally, I don't like powergaming, I think it's a dangerous trend to make PCs compete for technical power in what is the worlds' most cooperative game ever, where friends can get together to tell incredible stories and adventure as a party in fantastic places that exist nowhere else than their combined imagination. It's therefore a source of conflict, jealousy and bitterness if the players are not experienced in dealing with it. But I don't begrudge powergamers their builds and optimisation, if it makes them happy, why not let them have their fun ? After more than 7 years, it's been shown that they have exactly zero influence on the game, almost none of the rules clarifications that they are looking for has seen the light of day and there has been very little power drift.

All the changes are totally optional, the PH has not been revised to show anything but the legacy races with their ASI intact, and every DM is free to do whatever he wants with an open game. After that, it's better not to discuss or negotiate with extremists (of all sides, by the way, and not targeting anyone in this thread or elsewhere), they don't represent much outside of themselves and in the end you won't be able to convince them of anything.

No, the rules are not perfect, but with a bit of work every DM can make the game almost perfect for their table, whether you allow the new ASIs or not (None of the DMs at our tables do, but every DM is free to choose, so what more do you want, exactly ?).

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

How do you define "good"? Because if you mean "is not useless" then sure, even if your highest total roll ends up being a +3, you are not entirely useless. If you mean "matches the expected baseline" then only if you roll for stats and happen to get lucky. Because the expected baseline if having a +5 by the beginning of the game in your best attacks and skills.

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.

Then explain why two different people at the beginning of this thread said that they felt more free to explore more options with the floating scores?

Because, I did do that. Plus I had a player do that. And my Gnome Cleric was actually a key member of the party... but he felt weak and struggling at every turn. I was striving to meet that baseline goal because that lack of wisdom hurt my character. I was actually the heavily armored tank of the group... but I wanted to be a spellcaster and I had to rely on that half damage on a successful save, because nothing ever failed its save against my spells. I think part of the reason my character didn't feel too weak though was the number of the wall concepts we had. Had an orc barbarian/wizard, a dwarf ranger/bard. Two most powerful people though were the human fighter and aasimar paladin. Note how those were the two that didn't go "against type"

The player who did the Dragonborn cleric a few years later, struggled even harder, but was in a group of characters that were baseline, a strong orc, a strong goliath, an elf rogue. And he constantly felt worthless in the party, despite my every effort, despite giving him magic items to shore him up, he always felt like the weak link.

These aren't expeirences that didn't happen. This isn't white room theorycrafting with no "real" gameplay experience. This isn't all in my head. There is an actual issue that removing racial ASIs fixes. And the only complaint seems to come about how it makes DnD a less realistic population simulator, and I'm fine with that.

Never said it was.

Then maybe you should be more clear, again, when you say things like this. Because other than the class should start at a +0 I don't know what you mean by this "The baseline assumption should be 0."

Were you trying to say that the baseline assumption should literally be nothing? That is should be a zero in every score which is literally impossible? What are trying to say if I was so far off base?

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

Cool, be more clear so people actually understand you, and they might.

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.

Sure, and adding a single grain of salt to a meal is still "adding salt" but if you didn't change the flavor, what's the point? The realism of the game actively does not change by making Racial ASIs floating. We've told you this. We've demonstrated this.

This shows a profound misunderstanding of what I actually said.

No, it shows that saying "hp is abstract and meaningless, it could be anything" wasn't a great response to my point that a feat that the majority of people see as increasing physical toughness is exactly the kind of thing we are talking about, and isn't nonsensical to be taken by a race that doesn't have a +2 Con. You think it was a good response, because somehow people's perceptions of what the feat means don't matter because HP is an abstracted concept, but it wasn't.

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.

Nope. That isn't how it works.

A Cirque du Solei gymnast may have learned to twist their body into a pretzel, but that doesn't mean that anyone else, regardless of their physicality can learn to do so. If we say "only elves can learn to do this" then only elves can learn to do it. Not that anyone else really views feats as exclusively learned abilities, I mean, I certainly don't understand how you can learn to be telepathic or learn to be lucky or learn to grow retractable claws and tougher scales, but if you need feats to all be learned abilities, then knock yourself out.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

And they are still the rules that govern the reality of the game. Saying "the rules for DnD strength are terrible" is well and good, but saying "The rules for Strength in DnD don't accurately model what strength means in DnD" is a pretty bizarre statement. And since people are talking about modeling reality, about being just a touch more real... then we need to look at what the "reality" of DnD is actually like.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

The thing is, I agree with you on this. And that's why I want the scores to be floating. Heck, I'll take your more extreme "everyone just chooses the stats they want" solution.

What I don't want is for the things to remain locked in place like they were at the start of 5e. Keep floating ASIs as an optional rule if you must, but I think they are a solid way to start breaking this problem. The best solution ever? No, but those better solutions need a lot more design space than we have in the game as it stands.

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.

It has often seemed like you meant that in a negative light, so thank you for the apology and the clarification.

 

[Umbran]

It's a generalistic system that is designed mostly around human-like adventurers. Previous editions and in particular 3e/PF have given a false sense of what the game could be ...

...

There will always be extremists of all sides that are going to want the game to be modified to be perfect for their taste...

Personally, I don't like powergaming, I think it's a dangerous trend to make PCs compete for technical power ...

I mean... here we are talking about a strength score on a spider. That's... silly, but it seems a bit much to take this to such an indictment of game and styles. Maybe just realize that strength scores on tiny spiders are silly, and move on?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Personally, I don't like powergaming, I think it's a dangerous trend to make PCs compete for technical power in what is the worlds' most cooperative game ever, where friends can get together to tell incredible stories and adventure as a party in fantastic places that exist nowhere else than their combined imagination. It's therefore a source of conflict, jealousy and bitterness if the players are not experienced in dealing with it. But I don't begrudge powergamers their builds and optimisation, if it makes them happy, why not let them have their fun ? After more than 7 years, it's been shown that they have exactly zero influence on the game, almost none of the rules clarifications that they are looking for has seen the light of day and there has been very little power drift.

I agree with almost everything you say in your post, but I wanted to pop out this paragraph in particular. Because it highlights a crux issue that bothers me about this whole conversation every time it happens.

Making a halfling thief isn't powergaming. Nor is making a Dwarf Fighter. Not to my understanding of powergaming.

You might be able to argue that a Bugbear Echo Knight Polearm master with Sentinel is powergaming, that certainly is a very powerful build. But doing the bare minimum of making a race/class combo that is expected isn't powergaming.

I'd add that is especially true when a dwarf fighter with a 17 strength and 16 Constitution is the example build given on page 13 when discussing how to build a character with the standard array and apply racial ASIs.


And so, it bothers me when people say that those of us wanting to open that 16/16 1st level build up to more races are "just powergamers" because we aren't. Nobody read the PHB and say them make a Dwarven Fighter with a 17/16 in their two primary stats and decry that 5e was showing an example of powergaming. A coffee-lock is probably powergaming. A Hexblade Paladin with Polearm Master is probably powergaming.

Wanting your tiefling cleric to have a 16 wisdom at level 1 isn't powergaming. It's just wanting them to be in the same place as is expected of a 1st level cleric. I can list hundreds of characters that start 1st level with a 16 in their prime stat and no one would call it powergaming. Not a single build. But the moment I want a non-standard build that achieves the same starting point I'm powergaming? Why? Is Fire Resistance more useful to a cleric than it is a bard? Is the ability to cast minor illusion suddenly broken on a sorcerer but wasn't on a wizard? Poison resistance is just too powerful to allow a warlock to have?

Even the gold standard of these claims, the terrible dwarven wizard who gets medium armor... is the exact same as the Githyanki who get +1 Intelligence (therefor a 16) and can get medium armor as a wizard. Medium armored wizards with a 16 intelligence as level 1 have existed in the game since 2018, three years. Have we all been inundated with Githyanki armored wizards? Or did no one really even notice.

There is no powergaming here. None. It is a red herring.

 

[Garthanos]

I mean... here we are talking about a strength score on a spider. That's... silly, but it seems a bit much to take this to such an indictment of game and styles. Maybe just realize that strength scores on tiny spiders are silly, and move on?

Reality: "In proportion to their size and weight, spiders are incredibly strong. If you compare how much a spider can lift to how much a human can lift, accounting for proportions a spider is about 250 times stronger than the average human."

People complaining about fantasy :"Them tiny critters (still much larger than real ones) are impossibly strong"

 

[Bill Zebub]

(Sorry, this got REALLY long. I wasn't intending to type this much.)

First, Billy was not my example. It was one given (I think by you). I ran with it.

Yeah, I said, "It's not a case of me just wanting what billy has." And you said, "No, that's exactly what it is." (to paraphrase)

Which doesn't strike me as a shining example of trying to understand both sides.

In my mind there is a huge difference between, "I want to build the maximally effective character the rules allow" and "I want whatever other people at the table have." Clearly YMMV.

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.

Really? What if I said, "The need to have racial ASIs is the monster under the bed. It's all some people think about." Do you ever think about anything else?

Just because maximizing the primary attribute is frequently the overriding factor, how do you know that's all they think about? I've said multiple times in this thread that sometimes I would like to play a non-standard race/class combination, so obviously I'm at least thinking about something else, even though I don't ultimately choose it.

Actually, here's your evidence: if it were true that "all anyone thinks about" is the +1 (with a recognition that by "anyone" I think you mean "the subset of people who really care about the +1") then this debate wouldn't even exist because all those people wouldn't care about other factors, such as flavor. They (we) would just say, "Yeah, whatever, you can keep your racial ASIs as long as there is a race that gives me the +1 modifier. Because all I think about is getting the +1. I don't think about the other stuff."

But that's not what happens. Instead it's, "Hey, can we change these rules so that I can get my +1 and get my cool race?" Because we are thinking about other things, too.

I'll also add that what to looks like you with obsession about +1 is in the context of what the other choices are. At level 1 that choice is basically between +1 and the features offered by a non-optimized race. So instead of "all anybody thinks about" it's, "Given the narrow range of choices, the +1 tends to win out." And I'll point out that at higher levels, when the choice is between an ASI and a feat, this tends to still happen, but to a lesser extent. Sometimes they choose flavorful feats instead of +1. So clearly they are thinking about something else other than +1.

Another interesting data point would be if we knew how people choose between a +1 weapon and other magic items. If the data were to show a bias toward the alternate magic items (compared to the choice of race at level 1) that would blow your thesis out of the water: clearly +1 wouldn't be all they think about. It's just what they value most among the limited choices at level 1.

In other words, I wish what you had written above is: "It seems like that +1 is just too appealing for too many people, compared to other racial features. Too often they prioritize it over choosing a non-standard race." Do you see the difference between that and, "You have a psychological need; it's all you think about."? There's no need to hyperbolize, or to psychoanalyze other people. You can just describe the evidence, and add your perception of the results.

The data tells us this.

No, your experience (and interpretation) tells you this. The data tell us that there is a heavy skew toward optimized characters. It doesn't tell us how many people always optimize their characters, just that in aggregate vastly more do than would be the case if it were random.

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.

That's great. My anecdotal evidence is that people tend to pick optimized characters, but sometimes don't. I don't expect that to persuade you.

Again, you are jumping from what people do (choose the +1) to assumptions about the cause (a "need").

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

I've said it many times: an additional +1 to a majority of class-based dice rolls is too compelling mechanically, relative to the other options the game currently offers. It's the same problem with the ASI/feat choice at higher levels: with a couple of exceptions the feats are not as impactful as an ASI, so it makes it hard to choose the fun thing.

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.

What's "all evidence"? You ran a test at a con, and then interpreted the results from this test to indicate "need"?

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.

Ah, ok. Well, I occasionally build characters that don't have +3. And, again, my experience is that people tend to want that +3, but even the people who tend that do that occasionally don't. So maybe we can drop the absolutism?

So a position of want can't be logically supported. Data suggests race/class synergy appears to be a need.

Just to drive the point home: no, the data does not suggest that. It is more correct to say that the data, as well as your anecdotal evidence, are not inconsistent with your hypothesis.

Here's an analogy for you: God punished sinful humanity with COVID. That's what the data says.

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.

Mostly I just wish you'd say "desire" rather than "need".

But I don't think most people think they have to have a +3 to be viable. They don't have a misperception that this is necessary. They just think the game is most fun for them if they are effective at combat as the rules allow, and will frequently choose that over most other considerations.

But if we want to call that "perception", then I would say that the "need" for racial ASIs is also a matter of perception. Even more so than the "need" for synergy, because every character you can play with racial ASIs is still possible with floating ASIs, so the only thing left is one's perception about what the rules suggest about the larger setting, even if the actual manifestation of that is undetectable.

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.

It's the way you keep overlaying your own analysis of other people's mindsets, instead of accepting what they say about themselves, that is offensive.

(Again, sorry for length, and some repetitiveness.)

 

[Umbran]

Reality: "In proportion to their size and weight"

Reality: that "in proportion" is dependent on their absolute size. If you make them the size of a housecat, that proportion will break down. It is a matter of physics and muscles made up of cells. Strength goes like the square of linear size (the cross-sectional area of the muscle), while weight goes like the cube of linear size. The square-cube law gets you every time!

Spoiler: Aside: Do not read this if spiders freak you out!

Reality: A spider the size of a housecat should not be called a "tiny" spider. That's a friggin' ginormous spider. If you do not believe me, have someone sneak, say, just a tarantula in your bed at night, and see what you think when you wake up. Then, remember that is maximum 3 ounces of spider, and consider what you'd think if it was 10 pounds of spider. Or maybe just imagine someone dumping 50 tarantulas on you, as that's close to 10 pounds of spider...