D&D 5E (2014) Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)

[Maxperson]

The 5e designers disagree with you.

Doesn't matter. While they can change the rules, they cannot create racism where there isn't any via their belief.

 

[Scribe]

business owners giving warning labels,

No, I wasnt aware of that.

 

[Yaarel]

No, I wasnt aware of that.

Mainly for earlier editions.

 

[Scribe]

Mainly for earlier editions.

Oh, well that is a different matter, I thought you were talking about 5e (which outside of Volo's Orcs and the Vistani I agree are issues due to language used.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well it's been fun chatting with you folks, and I've learned some things, but from what I've seen any discussion about racism in gaming never persuades anybody of anything, and eventually spirals into unpleasantness. I'll keep checking in to see if the thread gets interesting again, but until then, have at it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Exactly, they did intend that.

And the player base doesn't like that. Well, not all of us at least.

A lot of us don't like that Dwarves aren't supposed to be bards, because we have a cool dwarven bard idea. We don't like that Tieflings aren't supposed to be fighters, because we have a cool tiefling fighter idea.

And if those ideas are acceptable, then we should have the same baseline starting point.

And if they want to change the game such that those archetypes are no longer important, they should bite the bullet and make a new edition, with a new setting, that leans into all these changes that the swarms of new players seem to want. Make 6e, and stop trying to "fix" 5e.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, look at that. You are right. I actually never realized that.

I mean, beyond the meta-rule that the DM can arbitrarily decide anything, the rules do say:


Point Buy, on the other hand, is explicitly left to the DM to approve.

That is true, Point Buy is an alternative that can be approved by the DM.

And a lot of people don't know this, which is why I am so firm on it. Players were given the sole authority to decide if they wanted randomized stats or not, and yet many DMs "put their foot down" and declare that they have no choice in the matter.

 

[Older Beholder]

I suppose my confusion is—given the initial examples of Genasi Cleric or perhaps Halfling Barbarian—why does that stand to suggest that someone would desire other free form modifications (or another system) more than it suggests they want to remain rooted in 5e and its traditions?

It doesn't. Which is why I didn't want to get drawn into an argument I wasn't making. Looks like I ended up on an ignore list as a result.

The one sentence back stories I gave, (the Genasi from personal experience, the halfling in the strength potion was a reference to Asterix comics) were meant to be examples of how one has more flexibility to create a desired back story with just standard array and floating ASI's.

 

[Lyxen]

I'll do just one try to keep it on ASIs rather that on racism, but I think

Why is that? What problem do you foresee if it’s a player level decision?

Because it's a power option, probably taken by a powergamer, it will potentially increase the differences in power level between optimised characters and normal ones, leading to the usual trouble when this happens. If it was a whole powergaming table (which, again, is absolutely fine), then the DM would probably approve all power options to please his players, and there would not be trouble of that kind.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're conflating a lack of encouragement with discouragement. It doesn't work that way. To discourage there needs to be a penalty, not a lack of encouragement.

No, I'm not. Because I never once said they discouraged, in fact I literally just said they did not actively discourage. However, that is not a requirement of setting an expected baseline. You can have an expected baseline and never once punish people to actively discourage them from the opposite. Case in point: Credit Cards. I'd say that it is the expected baseline that most Americans own a credit card. You aren't actively discouraged from not owning a credit card. You aren't punished if you don't have a credit card. There are simply benefits that encourage you to have one. That doesn't mean that you can't get by without a credit card, that not having one is non-viable, it is simply a baseline expectation.

Nope. If it was just because of eldritch knights then it would simply have been an eldritch knight ability and wizards would not be able to do it.

They probably went with that originally, and people didn't like it because they never liked it. And then they had to account for bards and warlocks and arcane tricksters who could all get moderately armored. Then they had to face the question of whether or not it was fair to exclude druids, rangers, clerics and paladins from having the penalty. Then they probably realized that with lightly, moderately and heavily armored that wizards and sorcerers could get it.

But at no point did they say that they wanted dwarf wizards and therefore removed the armor penalty. Because even with the armor penalty you could have dwarf wizards, because hill dwarves. It was a consequence of their choice, but it wasn't the driving factor. Heck, it is likely they removed it simply because 4e removed it and adding back in a penalty no one liked didn't appeal to them. Just like Dual-Weapon Wielding is no longer penalized.

The math of 65% doesn't prove diddly. You need to show the designers straight out saying that +3 is the baseline for it to be anything other than assumption.

No, I don't. You don't need the designers of the game talking about their expectations when the games design clearly shows it. Again, you seem to be conflating an "expected baseline" with "mechanically viable". These are not synonyms. They don't mean the same thing. I am not saying the second.

The game isn't balanced around humans.

Yes, it absolutely is. Everything in the game has to work out that the Base Human with their +1 to everything and no feats is balanced and feels like they don't fall behind. Heck, even your assertions are assuming humans as the origin point. "Elves are more dexterous" "More dexterous than what?" Humans. Everything revolves around humans.

I've also never read the bold part. Can you quote it for me? Players misperceiving the "need" to max out dex is not proof of designer intent.

You've never read this? "You can make a rogue quickly by following these suggestions. First, Dexterity should be your highest ability score."

See, I'll admit, I was speaking loosely, and could be misunderstood. By "max out" I didn't mean, "get a 20". I meant achieve the maximum result you can for first level. Because again, people aren't stupid. The game tells us that the first step to building a rogue is that Dexterity should be your highest ability, therefore it is perfectly logical and expected to choose a race that boosts Dexterity, to make it your highest ability score. And what are the standard races for rogues? Human, Halfling, Half-Elf, Elf. All of whom can get a 16 dexterity.

Or maybe the player of the halfling rogue puts his 13 in dex and then has 3 +2s, instead of a +3, +2 and +1. A third +2 is pretty good. Especially when it created two 15's to make 16's at 4th level.

Why would they do that? Halflings boost either charisma or constitution in addition to dexterity. To get three +2's you would have to make either intelligence or wisdom your highest stat, followed by constitution or charisma, with dexterity being your third highest stat before applying your ASI. And since you are playing a rogue, the first advice you get is "First, Dexterity should be your highest ability score." And by level 4 they are expecting you to have an 18 dex, not a 16.

14 isn't viable. It's good. Viable implies that it just gets by.

Exactly. It is viable. It isn't good, it isn't bad, it just gets by. Remember, I'm not talking about a 14 in your tertiary stat, I'm talking your prime.

Are you seriously arguing that if the baseline is +2 that the only characters capable of achieving that are against type? Because that's objectively wrong.

Really? Then show me a class and race combo that is in type (has ASIs that supports the class's prime stat) and follows the build advice in the PHB by putting their highest stat (a 15) into their prime stat, but that still ends up with a 15 in their prime stat.

Not racial biology.

That's because racial biology doesn't exist. There is only biology.

It shows a way to develop thicker scales later in life. Or maybe they can molt in a certain way if they learn how. Or.... Plenty of way that they could learn how to get thicker scales.

Sounds like a lot of biology to me, if they subject themselves to certain conditions they can grow harder scales. That isn't a learned skill, that is biology at work.