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

[Maxperson]

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.

I use it as it is commonly used. You'll need to prove your bold claim there. Since I don't believe that you can't prove it, I'll ask why you have the opinion that +5 must be the baseline, and +4 must not be?

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?

The bold explains it. It's just their personal feeling.

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.

You expect me to believe that? Nothing ever failed it's save against your spells at +4, but would have failed enough to make it worthwhile at +5? That +1 difference meant the difference between nothing failing to save and the spell is suddenly worthwhile?

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.

All because he started with a 14 instead of a 16? I'm not going to believe that even if a player somehow felt that he was weaker do the lack of +1, magic items providing +1 wouldn't fix it.

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.

It sounds very much like a psychological issue to me. I'm not saying or implying that you guys are insane, so don't go into left field on me again. I'm just saying that if a PC is lacking +1 and you provide that +1 via magic items, the issue is objectively gone. If the player still feels like he's weaker, that perception is just in his head and not actually true. The same with the misperception that the lack of +1 causes everything make it's save against your spells, but having that +1 means that the spell is now useful.

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."

I've never said or implied that the baseline bonus for a PC's main stat is 0. This is not a reasonable assumption to make from what I have been arguing here.

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?

I've been talking about the racial averages and racial stat bonuses. I've not once talked about or implied that PCs are average or that the baseline should be 0. That's a complete fabrication on your part.

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.

You've made the claim yes. Demonstrated it? No. Raising the racial dex average of a race that is more dexterous by giving it +2 does change the flavor and add more realism.

Nope. That isn't how it works.

Sure it does. The rules that limit PCs don't limit NPCs. This is why NPC wizards and such have abilities that PC wizards don't and vice versa. They've learned different things.

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.

Now you're implying that Cirque du Solei gymnasts are born to Cirque du Solei gymnasts and nobody else can learn it. The fact is, anyone from any part of the world who is born with a slender body type can learn how to do it. So while elves might all be slender and able to learn X ability, any human, orc, hobgoblin or triton with the same body type could also learn 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.

Someone with the ability helps you learn how to use your mind to project your thoughts. With practice and hard work, you eventually become able to do so and gain that feat. And do you really think that only Tabaxi have claws? Any intelligent race with claws should be able to learn to retract them. Just like any race with scales should be able to take the ability to have tougher scales. And we see from the game that anyone who wants to can learn to be lucky. They weren't lucky from levels 1-3 and now at level 4 they are!

 

[Maxperson]

And they are still the rules that govern the reality of the game.

There's a reason why this is at the beginning of the DMG,

"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

The designers understand that the rules when applied as written to every situation will break down in some of them, like your tiny spider example. They expect that the DM will recognize absurd situations like that and just say no. The DM should make a ruling over the rule, like the game's mantra says.

 

[Scribe]

Because the expected baseline if having a +5 by the beginning of the game in your best attacks and skills.

Where is this baseline expectation established by WotC?

 

[Maxperson]

Where is this baseline expectation established by WotC?

It isn't, and from experience +4 does very well. I think the baseline is 14-15 in the prime stat, not 16. Rolling is a default method of stat generation and they couldn't be sure that a PC would end up with a 16+ in a prime stat, but 14+ is pretty reasonable when you roll 4d6-L.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The reality is that different people will have different opinions about what the optimal attribute score is, and nobody is right or wrong. So I think it's pretty pointless to argue that you "need" a 20 or that 14 is "enough".

Since it is unlikely that anybody will be persuaded to change their opinion on this (and, really, even if you persuaded one person on the forums, how much impact is that?) I believe the interesting thing to explore is how the incentive to make certain character choices impacts what happens at the table. If one believes that too much emphasis is placed on primary attributes, then the question is how you can either decrease the game's dependence on that number, or increase the impact of other choices.

In fact, WotC has been doing exactly this with newer subclasses, by shifting number of uses between rests from ability modifier to proficiency bonus.

 

[Scribe]

The reality is that different people will have different opinions about what the optimal attribute score is, and nobody is right or wrong. So I think it's pretty pointless to argue that you "need" a 20 or that 14 is "enough".

I mean you are probably right, its probably just a circular topic but this in particular continues to stick.

Optimal is not the question. That is easy. Optimal will be 'highest number possible till cap', because balance in the game is not tightly tuned, and its up to the DM to make other stats outside of the primary, useful, or punishing tanking a score.

The question remains if its viable to NOT max out, so either:

1. WotC has a baked in expectation of maxing out primary stat that I've not seen. Rendering choice an illusion.
2. WotC does not require maxed out primary stat, and we actually have choice.

 

[Maxperson]

The reality is that different people will have different opinions about what the optimal attribute score is, and nobody is right or wrong. So I think it's pretty pointless to argue that you "need" a 20 or that 14 is "enough".

Very true. This is why, though, racial stats are okay. If you feel like you need higher than 14, pick a race that gives it to you or use the optional rule from Tasha's. If you don't, then the racial stats are perfectly fine. Everything as it currently stands works for everyone. Changing what isn't broken isn't the way to go.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mean you are probably right, its probably just a circular topic but this in particular continues to stick.

Optimal is not the question. That is easy. Optimal will be 'highest number possible till cap', because balance in the game is not tightly tuned, and its up to the DM to make other stats outside of the primary, useful, or punishing tanking a score.

Well, if you are defining "optimal" as mathematical combat efficacy, then yes. Although even then not always true. I'm pretty sure it's consensus that with some builds there are feats that are more optimal than ASIs. I guess you could argue that it's still optimal to eventually max out your primary stat.

But, really, "optimal" should factor in softer variables, like roleplaying, or having fun abilities (whether from racials or feats), or improving the efficacy of some of those abilities. (E.g., is it more optimal for a Paladin to invest in Strength or Charisma? Does a monk invest in Dex or Wis? It depends on how you play your class and which features you most value.)

My primary argument is that these other options are, from looking at the data, insufficiently appealing to many/most players to counterbalance the obvious benefit of +1 to your primary stat.

 

[Scribe]

Right, and I'm not saying things are well balanced, in fact I'm saying the opposite, repeatedly. Balance is not so tight, not so defined, that 'optimal' is necessary mechanically. Thats the point.

Is there an optimal? Absolutely. There will ALWAYS be an optimal, gamers are too good now, to dialed in, for there to not be an optimal under some basic assumptions.

Is there a viable, which is not optimal? Yes, I think there are many many choices which are still viable, while not being optimal.

So this again boils down to what is the goal of design. I believe there are many viable options, while ASI assigned as per the release of 5e through to MToF, provide clear archetypes and choice.

There is optimal as well, but they are (optimal vs viable) distinct things.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Right, and I'm not saying things are well balanced, in fact I'm saying the opposite, repeatedly. Balance is not so tight, not so defined, that 'optimal' is necessary mechanically. Thats the point.

Is there an optimal? Absolutely. There will ALWAYS be an optimal, gamers are too good now, to dialed in, for there to not be an optimal under some basic assumptions.

Is there a viable, which is not optimal? Yes, I think there are many many choices which are still viable, while not being optimal.

So this again boils down to what is the goal of design. I believe there are many viable options, while ASI assigned as per the release of 5e through to MToF, provide clear archetypes and choice.

There is optimal as well, but they are (optimal vs viable) distinct things.

I'm not disagreeing with any of this (although it's possible I'm not understanding it). I'm not even sure why we are talking about it. Is somebody saying that a +2 (or less!) isn't "viable"?