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

[Scott Christian]

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

While some old school players will like this suggestion, it will never reflect the the new player, nor does it adhere to any new style of game design. Many younger players watch anime, where half the strong characters are 12 year old boys and 80 pound girls.

And game design features are about removing limitations. The anything can be anybody mindset. And when there is a limitation, it often still has the illusion of choice. Think of subclasses and spells and feats. You don't get this spell until 5th level, but until then, look at all the other options you have. Hard set limitations are a thing of the past.

And as a side note, this is one of the main reasons settings are as expansive as they are now, with very few or no limitations.

 

[Scribe]

While some old school players will like this suggestion, it will never reflect the the new player, nor does it adhere to any new style of game design. Many younger players watch anime, where half the strong characters are 12 year old boys and 80 pound girls.

And game design features are about removing limitations. The anything can be anybody mindset. And when there is a limitation, it often still has the illusion of choice. Think of subclasses and spells and feats. You don't get this spell until 5th level, but until then, look at all the other options you have. Hard set limitations are a thing of the past.

And as a side note, this is one of the main reasons settings are as expansive as they are now, with very few or no limitations.

While everything you say here is likely correct, I cannot imagine a worse design than 'anything goes'.

 

[Malmuria]

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.

Um, ok, interesting logic.

I've played various editions of dnd with different groups, including a lot of new players that I introduced to the game as adults. Of the main group of people I play with currently, two started with AD&D, and generally understand and DM for 5e as well, while the other two are new players and don't really care too much about the rules. And then I play with my nephew, who is 8 years old, so I have to simplify things for him. None of these people are powergamers or care about racial vs floating asi. The old school dnd players have a lot of the standard dnd fantasy tropes ingrained, but the new players come to characters will all sorts of different ideas and expectations, which is interesting to see. Given the rise in popularity of the game, I think the new players' relative lack of investment in dnd tropes (and hence, to some degree, in racial asi) is probably more illustrative of the broader experience than my friends who have been playing since 1e or 2e.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The old school dnd players have a lot of the standard dnd fantasy tropes ingrained, but the new players come to characters will all sorts of different ideas and expectations, which is interesting to see. Given the rise in popularity of the game, I think the new players' relative lack of investment in dnd tropes (and hence, to some degree, in racial asi) is probably more illustrative of the broader experience than my friends who have been playing since 1e or 2e.

I agree with this. The people who hang out on this forum (myself included) are not even remotely representative of the whole population. A few years ago we would have been (or, at least, moreso) but 5e kind of blew that out of the water.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

And yet you claim that it is unreasonable that every adult might be born with an abstract 15 in any of 6 stats. You realize that there are 720 possible combinations of stats with the standard array, yet you want to decry them as "cookie cutter" and unrealistic?

Your claim is baseless, relying only on a preconceived notion that has no basis. If being in the same weight bracket doesn't make you identical, how can possibly having one of six values in one of six places make you "cookie cutter"?

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.

This has nothing to do with my argument.

You have put forth that everyone being born with the same stats is unrealistic.

Firstly, no one is born with their stats period. They are obviously grown over time through a combination of factors including training. So, your premise is false before we get anywhere else.

Secondly, since they can train we must ask, is it unrealistic to have multiple people in the same profession train to the same level? No. It is not.

So, between being born, training, and general knowledge of combinations and large numbers in the population compared to small numbers of player characters, there is no way I can find to say it is unrealistic. Perhaps slightly unlikely, but it doesn't matter. Unrealistic doesn't start until you get far far more PCs than you have ever seen in your entire career.

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

No, at my tables they've pretty much always chosen to roll. I don't usually do point-buy, but I don't think I've had someone choose the standard array in my last five games easily. The difference is, I always gave them the option, and told them that it was fine, and they wanted to roll anyways.

If you have someone who wanted to use the standard array, you'd tell them no, because you think it makes for an unrealistic cookie cutter character. Even if they were the only person to use it. Which is nonsensical.

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.

The community always sets the archetypes. No designer in the world can counter-act that without extraordinary circumstances.

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..

Words have meaning, I wasn't talking about the "vast majority" of dwarven clerics, I was talking about the one in the party. Who, more than likely, has a +1 or +2 dex mod. Making them as graceful or more than your average elf.

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.

But the only dwarf in the party is more dexterous than the average elf. Nearly guaranteed. So, if your elves are going to be more dexterous than the dwarf, then they either must be extraordinary themselves, or it actually doesn't matter what their stats are.

I'm sure that's how you've described it as well right, when a dwarf has a dex of 12 through 14 on their character sheet, you've said they are as graceful as an elf.

 

[Maxperson]

And yet you claim that it is unreasonable that every adult might be born with an abstract 15 in any of 6 stats. You realize that there are 720 possible combinations of stats with the standard array, yet you want to decry them as "cookie cutter" and unrealistic?

Same exact 6 numbers to all of them.

Your claim is baseless, relying only on a preconceived notion that has no basis. If being in the same weight bracket doesn't make you identical, how can possibly having one of six values in one of six places make you "cookie cutter"?

And yet......................False Equivalences remain false.

You have put forth that everyone being born with the same stats is unrealistic.

Nope. I said every PC having the same 6 numbers at 1st level is unrealistic.

Firstly, no one is born with their stats period. They are obviously grown over time through a combination of factors including training. So, your premise is false before we get anywhere else.

Cool. The whole born schtick is yours, not mine. I'm talking about PCs. Stop with the fallacious arguing.

Secondly, since they can train we must ask, is it unrealistic to have multiple people in the same profession train to the same level? No. It is not.

Yes, yes it is. Some of them will have 18's before they even begin training. Others 11's. And it's absurd to think they they will all have the same physique, training regimen, and will build muscle in exactly the same way. I mean, you're arguing here that they are more cookie cutter than even I am.

No, at my tables they've pretty much always chosen to roll. I don't usually do point-buy, but I don't think I've had someone choose the standard array in my last five games easily. The difference is, I always gave them the option, and told them that it was fine, and they wanted to roll anyways.

What does any of that have to do with tons of tables using arrays and point buy?

The community always sets the archetypes. No designer in the world can counter-act that without extraordinary circumstances.

The archetype has been present for all dwarves since 1e. You don't get to change that.

Words have meaning, I wasn't talking about the "vast majority" of dwarven clerics, I was talking about the one in the party. Who, more than likely, has a +1 or +2 dex mod. Making them as graceful or more than your average elf.

More than likely? Clerics usually mix it up physically as well as with spells. That takes strength, constitution and wisdom, and if they want to preach to the masses, charisma. They can't have bonuses in everything with an array.

But the only dwarf in the party is more dexterous than the average elf. Nearly guaranteed. So, if your elves are going to be more dexterous than the dwarf, then they either must be extraordinary themselves, or it actually doesn't matter what their stats are.

You do realize that it has nothing to do with PCs being extraordinary, right? These are two completely different things.

 

[Lyxen]

People who would play a Tortle caster because of, and only because of, new synergies allowed by Tasha's were going to pick something hyper-optimized anyway. It's not like that option is going to turn people into powergamers.

I mean, isn't simply having a greater variety of powergamer builds a desirable outcome? Aren't you sick of seeing Vengeance Paladins with GWM and Polearm Mastery, SorLocks, etc.?

You do realise, though, that all these are all based on options ? Feats are options and so is multiclassing. Hence a very easy way to avoid these problems, be careful which options you allow.

And I'm sorry, but if you allow them all, it's because you want powerful characters. Most of the feats (and in particular those used in these builds) are only there for pure technical power, they have nothing to do with the story or the roleplay. As for the multiclass, it's even worse. And don't even try to pretend that it's to explore new roles, I very much doubt that you have tried all the archetypes of all classes even in the PH. So all of this, under an often thin veneer of roleplay that is provided after the technical build is complete to "justify" it to DMs (some people must really think that their DMs are idiots for not seeing through this), is pure powergaming.

In our Odyssey of the Dragonlords, multiclassing is not allowed, because we all have really interesting archetypes (not in terms of power, but in terms of links to the campaign background), and we want to see them through. In most our campaign, level dipping (which, honestly, cannot be called anything else than powergaming) is not allowed either.

And because we all think non-human races are more fun and more varied, we have very few feats and almost no builds in play. So no, we do not want any more powergamer builds, thank you very much, especially since we almost do not have any in play anyway.

Again, nothing wrong with powergaming, if it is what you like, but it's not in the core game, it's not the intent of the design as expressly worded by the devs, and if you do it, please be aware of it and be tolerant of people who play differently, not condescending because they are idiots not to reap every single shred of power from builds (that, in most cases, you have not even invented yourself). In our case, we are tolerants of powergamers (heck, we have some amongst our oldest friends), as long as they don't disrupt the game.

And back to Floating ASIs, it is just another option, just like feats and multiclassing, that is certainly not needed to enjoy the game unless you definitively want power on top of your story/roleplaying choices.

 

[Older Beholder]

I haven't seen this much Tortle disrespect since the 'why do people play exotic races' thread.
I can tell you my Tortle monk was based more on the TMNT's than it was power gaming.

 

[Lyxen]

I haven't seen this much Tortle disrespect since the 'why do people play exotic races' thread.
I can tell you my Tortle monk was based more on the TMNT's than it was power gaming.

Good for you, we are Europeans, TMNT is not that popular over here, and in any case our fantasy runs much more with LotR than with Comics, so TMNT would certainly not be a source of inspiration for us. I will gladly play an orc (I was remarked as LARPing en excellent Orc during the animations that we did at cinemas for LotR opening), we have had very good kobolds and lizardfolks, but tortle are not really inspirational to us.

YCMV, and to each his own...

 

[Lyxen]

No, I wasn't. I mean, it was satire, but I'm 100% serious about the point: the way you treat powergamers/optimizers as a black and white thing, with all of them being as bad as the worst ones, is just as ridiculous as the claims I made in that post.

This is not what I'm saying, since the start, I have mentioned that there is a gradation in powergaming, with very mild cases and very extreme cases (but I'm pretty sure that you don't want to include munchkins in the equation, as it goes even beyond powergaming). What I would like you to realise is that they are all cases of powergaming. After that, on top of it, some people are really jerks about it, which is another matter entirely, as you can be a jerk in many different ways.

I also find this oft-repeated argument entirely specious. These games were called "roleplaying games" back before it involved much if any play-acting of personalities. It simply meant you were playing the role of a single character (as opposed to a cast of characters, as in military strategy games) and because the various characters have varying powers (unlike tokens in a board game) the way one plays this role will likely vary from the other participants.

The type of roleplaying you are describing was grafted onto the game over time.

And again, on this, I am speaking from experience and I suspect that you are not. I have started D&D in 1978, and we were already really roleplaying at the time, almost as we are playing today. So no, it was not grafted over the game over time, it was there right at the start. Moreover, it's been more than 40 years for me, but more importantly (and again powergamers don't like this pointed out), it is the way all recent editions and in particular 5e are described by the designers. And 5e has been in existence for about 7 years now, so no, roleplaying is the basis and the intent of the game.

You can also powerplay if you like, the game is broad enough for it, but I don't think that you will find a single proof that it was the intent of the game and in particular of that edition.