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

[Lyxen]

Because people are calling for a lot more changes than just floating ability scores.

No, "people" are not calling for a lot of changes. 5e is the most successful D&D edition either, still going extremely strong and actually drawing more and more people to it. This puts the statistics firmly where they belong, and the fact that a few people would like a different D&D game for various reasons needs to be seen for what it is, a minority, especially since the game is so flexible that it already accommodates so many playing styles.

 

[Scott Christian]

Okay, but we aren't arguing about getting a 17, we are arguing that the baseline is 16. And the counter argument is that it is 15.

Since humans can achieve a 16 in any stat they choose, that seem to imply very heavily that that is the baseline.

Not to be picky, but I am not sure I would use the term baseline. Baseline implies a starting point or minimum. Maybe it's the median of the class's primary stat. I know it seems picky, and I apologize if it does. But, it can't be a minimum when there are (were) many race/class combos that start at 15.
The range for people following the directions about placing their highest score in their primary stat is 15-17.

 

[Lyxen]

And I know you might be thinking, "You accept all sorts of silly things. Like fireballs, flying dragons, and so many different intelligent humanoids concentrated in a tiny area so why not halflings with a 20 Strength?" Verisimilitude I guess. A halflings with a 20 Strength breaks it for me in a way that a dragon does not.

And in addition to this excellent post that I agree 100% with, PC halflings can still get a 20 strength, it will just take them a bit more time to reflect that they really need to be heroes of their race for that, but that will only make the story more incredible in the end.

So yes, another proof that it's only fort powergaming and getting more bonuses earlier, nothing more, and in particular not racism of any kind.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, "people" are not calling for a lot of changes. 5e is the most successful D&D edition either, still going extremely strong and actually drawing more and more people to it. This puts the statistics firmly where they belong, and the fact that a few people would like a different D&D game for various reasons needs to be seen for what it is, a minority, especially since the game is so flexible that it already accommodates so many playing styles.

Even if what we're dealing with is a vocal minority, which may or may not be true, the shifts we have been seeing in product and attitude for the last year or two show that they are not being ignored. Which is why I'm advocating that WotC rip off the band aid with 6e, and leave 5e alone. Then we'll see if we're dealing with a minority or not, in the form of sales figures.

 

[Lyxen]

Even if what we're dealing with is a vocal minority, which may or may not be true

The popularity of 5e shows that it's the case. If a majority was discontent with the game, it would not going on that strongly.

the shifts we have been seeing in product and attitude for the last year or two show that they are not being ignored.

It's really interesting to see how extremely minor and, more importantly totally optional changes are seen as a victory by the above minority. However, not only are the changes extremely limited, but the core books are totally unchanged, no reprint changes, whether in technicalities nor in "political correctness" (the orc perspective is unchanged from 7 years ago), and power creep is totally under control, while still keeping at bay the most critical adversaries of the game with some announcements barely followed by any real change. For me, this is a mastery of the game and its environment that I can only applaud, both from a management and a player perspective. Esepcially, if I may say so, a long term player perspective who not only loves the game, but does not particularly want to throw all his investment in the bin like what was done in half the time by 3e, then 3.5,then 4e. YMMV and YCMV but still...

Which is why I'm advocating that WotC rip off the band aid with 6e, and leave 5e alone. Then we'll see if we're dealing with a minority or not, in the form of sales figures.

And my take is that this will not happen for a long, a very long time, because that would indeed cause the sales figures of 5e to crash as people would stop buying anything to wait for 6e anyway, whatever the contents of the new edition. Moreover, one of the reasons for the success of 5e was the extensive open playtesting that gave the edition that we have today. After the crash of 4e, it was an easy decision to make to do things this way, they had almost nothing to lose, but not only is it a very costly undertaking, but it's not the case today, and considering the immense success of 5e, there is a high likelihood that any such sort of polling would probably result in the same kind of game that 5e is, an extremely flexible game that allows so many different playstyles and really facilitates the induction of new players, whereas most of what the minority wants is a return to the extremely crunchy and geeky games of previous editions which have, on the contrary, proven that they do not last long (so ROI is poor) and that their audience is extremely limited.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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


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.

Ok, so let's say that you have a dirty, stinkin' powergamer at your table, who understandably is trying to keep this fact quiet. If you are enforcing racial ASIs, isn't this person just going to pick a race:class combination that has ASI synergy? Or were you thinking that if the powergamer' munchkin scheming get's thwarted they'll go for the sub-optimal race? (I doubt it.)

On the other hand, if you allowed floating ASIs, maybe they would have picked a different race for roleplaying reasons, because they wouldn't have felt boxed into one decision.

 

[Ixal]

Ok, so let's say that you have a dirty, stinkin' powergamer at your table, who understandably is trying to keep this fact quiet. If you are enforcing racial ASIs, isn't this person just going to pick a race:class combination that has ASI synergy? Or were you thinking that if the powergamer' munchkin scheming get's thwarted they'll go for the sub-optimal race? (I doubt it.)

On the other hand, if you allowed floating ASIs, maybe they would have picked a different race for roleplaying reasons, because they wouldn't have felt boxed into one decision.

When you are picking your race exclusively for power you are not role playing anyway, no matter what you tell yourself.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ok, so let's say that you have a dirty, stinkin' powergamer at your table, who understandably is trying to keep this fact quiet. If you are enforcing racial ASIs, isn't this person just going to pick a race:class combination that has ASI synergy? Or were you thinking that if the powergamer' munchkin scheming get's thwarted they'll go for the sub-optimal race? (I doubt it.)

On the other hand, if you allowed floating ASIs, maybe they would have picked a different race for roleplaying reasons, because they wouldn't have felt boxed into one decision.

It’s not really clear why the power gamer that always picks the optimal choice would ever pick a suboptimal choice in either scenario?

 

[FrogReaver]

When you are picking your race exclusively for power you are not role playing anyway, no matter what you tell yourself.

Roleplay doesn’t happen at character selection. It happens during the game. No matter how one picks a character they can roleplay that character in the game.

 

[Lyxen]

Ok, so let's say that you have a dirty, stinkin' powergamer at your table

Please note how YOU (not I) are adding negative adjectives to powergaming ? This is really part of the problem. I have no issue with powergamers in and of themselves, nor with powergaming, I have been quite a rabid one at some points in my roleplaying history and some of my best friends and long term DMs/Players are.

I am just wary of the effects of powergaming on tables, especially those with mixed tastes and objectives, and have found that by technically limiting it, I have much better tables and ambiance, and much more satisfied players overall.

who understandably is trying to keep this fact quiet.

As I've demonstrated, it's stupid to do this. First, it's really obvious to any DM with a bit of experience, but more importantly, you are just trying to game in a way that will not bring you satisfaction. Be open about your tastes, and the DM will cater for them as long as there is no conflict with the taste of the rest of the table.

If you are enforcing racial ASIs, isn't this person just going to pick a race:class combination that has ASI synergy? Or were you thinking that if the powergamer' munchkin scheming get's thwarted they'll go for the sub-optimal race? (I doubt it.)

Of course they won't, but because the system is reasonably balanced as it is, the discrepancies between an optimised character and a non optimised one are not going to cause trouble at the table, with jealousy, spotlight hogging, etc.

On the other hand, if you allowed floating ASIs, maybe they would have picked a different race for roleplaying reasons, because they wouldn't have felt boxed into one decision.

The thing is that powergamers are usually clever people, for one, and it's not because they powergame that they can't roleplay or don't enjoy it. However, if roleplay was really the intent of you choosing a race/class combination for a 100 sessions campaign, would you really care about that +1 ?