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

[Maxperson]

It would seem that PHB options + floating ASI is a much lower power level than keeping racial ASI but allowing all of the races and subclasses from the various supplements, especially Tasha's. So if we are talking, say, about a 5.5e PHB, floating ASI would not be the thing that introduces power creep.

It still would, because many, if not most groups would still allow races from outside the PHB into the game and those would most likely have floating bonuses for consistency sake. It's just a very minor power creep. Not a big deal at all.

Anyway, my players don't read the rulebooks let along online guides, forget most of their abilities, and end up defaulting to doing the same 2 or 3 things in combat over and over again. If anything fights that should be of a moderate difficulty end up being very difficult because no one knows what they're doing. . So, as with all things, ymmv.

lol I have one player like that. The other three know their abilities and use them well.

 

[Yaarel]

For gamers who want race ability score improvements, how about race ability score minimums instead?

The race minimums are still problematic, but they are less problematic because there is no upper limit. For example. An orcs can exhibit low Intelligence 8, but orcs with high Intelligence 16 also exist, even 20.

Consider a table for size with ability minimums.

Strength and Constitution score minimum: Possible size
25: Gargantuan
21: Huge
17: Large
13: Heavyweight (Medium, Powerful Build)
9: Lightweight (Medium)
5: Small
1: Tiny

According to this table, a healthy small character will have Strength an Constitution scores of at least 5.

A healthy lightweight character is going to have Strength and Constitution scores of at least 9.

A healthy heavyweight with a powerful build must have at least 13.

According to this table, there are no (healthy) Large characters with less than a 17 score in both Strength and Constitution.



So if a DM imagine than an orc is typically heavyweight, then this orc will have a minimum score of 13 in both Strength and Constitution.

Where the official array is currently 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8, an orc character can assign the 14 and 13 to Strength and Constitution to qualify for the ability minimum, and still have 15 for Intelligence to be a powerful Wizard.



I would not enforce race ability score minimums. However, as a player, if I am creating the character concept of a tough orc Wizard, I would build it exactly as above.



Consider the size table above for a small halfling. Many members of the same lineage have a Strength score 8 or less. Even a player character with a Strength score 10 is already punching above the weight class. A halfling with a Strength score 14 is about as a rare as a large human, say, well over 9 feet tall and healthy! A halfling with a Strength score of 18 needs to lean into magical explanations for this is even possible. When I builf a halfling character concept, I keep these size implications in mind too.

 

[Yaarel]

And that's where this analysis falls apart. You cannot construct an arbitrary cost system, and then at the end say, "Look how valuable that is!" You made up the system that dictated its value!

If you compare the official score pointbuy costs, the costs that I assigned based on feel turn out almost identical. Indeed my cost of 6 points for a 14, is probably more accurate than the official equivalent of 5 points (7 points - 2 points because of setting 8 at 0 points).

The numbers I used are excellent.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Whether you budge on this or not is irrelevant. You don't play in my game. In my game, per RAW, I as DM changed the rule with the power given to me by the game to change any rule.

And telling other people their preferences are boring and they are only allowed to play with you if they conform to your preferences is overstepping the bounds of a group activity like playing a game, no matter how much "power" you think the game gives you.

False Equivalences are false. First, I removed it because it's unrealistic, not boring. Every PC isn't going to be born with the same stats. Second, a proper analogy would be if hammers were unrealistic, so I removed all hammers from the game. At that point it would have nothing to do with paladins or PCs. It would just be a general house rule.

Ah, so by "cookie cutter" you meant unrealistic, not boring. My apologies then.

Still not your call to make. Because, shockingly, an awful large percentage of people are born awfully similar. The average weight of an average baby is 7 lbs. Let's assume that only 20% of people conform to the average (and impossibly low amount). In the United States alone there were 3,605,201 babies born, so 20% of that is 721,040 babies born at 7 lbs.

Unrealistic for everyone to be born the same, yet you have not had over 700,000 characters at your table I'd wager, and at least 700,000 of them being the same could still be realisitic. And weight is only a single statistic. Much like having a 15 strength is a single statistic that is different that a 15 Dex, which is different than a 15 Con.

Also, your ability scores have to go up as you age. No baby is born with an 18 strength and capable of throwing their own mother around. So, even if they end up in the same place, they aren't born the same. So, your complaint is really kind of silly, because spreading the same few numbers around for a few hundred people is no more realistic or unrealistic than anything else.

And if you switched and everyone started using the standard array, that might tell you something, because despite me always pointing out that they don't have to... people always roll.

Other than the fact that you are anyway. "Make your highest stat" means something different than "highest placed stat." The former allows it to be after bonuses. The latter does not, and does not exist in the PHB. By adding +2 to the 13 I have made it my highest state.

And yet no one has ever taken it to mean that until they needed to try and refute the fact that the designers expected people to have a 16 or higher.

You've said it, but your words don't make it true. And no, I don't have to ask which D&D dwarves. Since 1e the single D&D dwarven(all subraces) archetype is fighters and clerics both. That means that hill dwarf fighters and mountain dwarf clerics are both archetypical. There is no further subdivision beyond dwarf.

Bet if you actually looked at character build information you'd find that to be false. Most Dwarven Clerics would be Hill Dwarves, and most Dwarven Fighters would be Mountain dwarves. So, the divide is real, you just don't want to admit it.

I think you actually believe that.

Yes, I do, because despite your utter certainty to the contrary, I don't lie about what I want and why I want it.

There may not even be elves in the world. Another decision that I as DM can make per RAW that can affect character generation.

Sure, but that doesn't change my point. 99.99% of NPCs don't have stats anyways, and your "graceful elves" with their 12's are likely as graceful as the heavily armored dwarven cleric.

So unless you roll 3d6+2 everytime the players meet an elf to see how graceful they actually are, I don't see the point in this.

 

[Scribe]

For gamers who want race ability score improvements, how about race ability score minimums instead?

I've come to see you need both.

Min/Max Values.
Options that go above 20.
Negative ASI modifiers.
Paragon Abilities.
Special Abilities.
Racial Feats.
ASI variants (+1 All, 3 +1, +2/+1, +2/+2/-2)

All of it.

 

[Yaarel]

I've come to see you need both.

Min/Max Values.
Options that go above 20.
Negative ASI modifiers.
Paragon Abilities.
Special Abilities.
Racial Feats.
ASI variants (+1 All, 3 +1, +2/+1, +2/+2/-2)

All of it.

I want race feats at levels 2, 10, and 18, namely a trait (half of a feat), a feat (full feat), and an epic boon, respectively.

The epic boon at level 18, could be used to improve a score 20 to 22.

I would keep the boon floating too, but you can use it any way you want.

The extra trait at level 2 helps stretch out potent race features, for example udadrow magic. The feat at level 10 is for powerful race features, like true flight.

 

[Maxperson]

Still not your call to make. Because, shockingly, an awful large percentage of people are born awfully similar. The average weight of an average baby is 7 lbs. Let's assume that only 20% of people conform to the average (and impossibly low amount). In the United States alone there were 3,605,201 babies born, so 20% of that is 721,040 babies born at 7 lbs.

False Equivalences are still false. Being born in similar weight brackets does not mostly identical adults make. You might as well have just gone for the gold and said that everyone is born 0 years old, we're all identical.

Also, your ability scores have to go up as you age. No baby is born with an 18 strength and capable of throwing their own mother around. So, even if they end up in the same place, they aren't born the same. So, your complaint is really kind of silly, because spreading the same few numbers around for a few hundred people is no more realistic or unrealistic than anything else.

Eh, no. Everything is not as realistic as everything else. In 5e Dragons are not as realistic as a longsword. I could go on, but that one example destroys your argument here. False Equivalences remain false.

And if you switched and everyone started using the standard array, that might tell you something, because despite me always pointing out that they don't have to... people always roll.

And this is just wrong. Lots of groups like point buy and array. People do not always roll.

Bet if you actually looked at character build information you'd find that to be false. Most Dwarven Clerics would be Hill Dwarves, and most Dwarven Fighters would be Mountain dwarves.

I don't need to look at build info. The players don't get to set the archetypes. We're talking about the game's design, not player preferences. D&D does and fighters and clerics are archetypical for all D&D dwarves.

Sure, but that doesn't change my point. 99.99% of NPCs don't have stats anyways, and your "graceful elves" with their 12's are likely as graceful as the heavily armored dwarven cleric.

Nope. The vast majority dwarven clerics will be NPCs and those will not have the +2 dex bonus or that the elves do, or the stat generation that PCs do, so will not be as dexterous on average..

So unless you roll 3d6+2 everytime the players meet an elf to see how graceful they actually are, I don't see the point in this.

The point is that the average elf is more dexterous than the average dwarf. I don't need to roll every elf's stats to know this.

 

[Yaarel]

Based on the ability score pointbuy costs that I assigned above, the following six-ability arrays should feel about equally appealing. Given these arrays, there are no more race improvements. So the array is the final result that a character starts with, albeit a player can use pointbuy to finetune it.

Score (Cost)
10 (0 points)
11 (1 point)
12 (2 points)
13 (3 points)
14 (6 points)
15 (9 points)
16 (16 points)



36-Point Arrays

16, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10

16, 14, 14, 14, 12, 10

14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14



Edit.

Honestly, because six-abilities allow for dump abilities and are more fungible, the 16s still come too easily. The first array with two 16s still feels more powerful than the other two arrays. It might be that the number of abilities must be taken into consideration when determining the cost of a high score.

 

[Yaarel]

Suppose instead, for a six-ability array, the costs are as follows, with their noticeable mathematical progression.



Score (Cost)
10 (0 points)
11 (1 point)
12 (2 points)
13 (3 points)
14 (6 points)
15 (9 points)
16 (18 points)
17 (27 points)
18 (54 points)
19 (81 points)
20 (162 points)



36-Point Arrays

14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14

16, 16, 10, 10, 10, 10

16, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10

16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 12




These arrays feel a bit more equal.

The third array might be the best, considering dump abilities, but is within reason, and avoids the two 16s and all 14s.



Edit.

I am happy enough with these costs.

 

[Scott Christian]

Anyway, my players don't read the rulebooks let along online guides, forget most of their abilities, and end up defaulting to doing the same 2 or 3 things in combat over and over again. If anything fights that should be of a moderate difficulty end up being very difficult because no one knows what they're doing. . So, as with all things, ymmv.

I often like having a player like that at the table. It's like the goldfish mentality, everything is new.

But as far as this discussion goes, that really makes any observation you have had null and void regarding this topic. If you play and observe players that don't even read the rulebooks and never know what they are doing, I would think that is the minority of players, or at least in a quartile somewhere.