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

[Lyxen]

I think you are pushing an incredibly narrow sense for what the “intent” of the game for the sake of winning an online argument while also ignoring the rest of the text in the introduction.

Alright, then please let us know what the intent of the game is, according to the developers. But it would be nice if it was supported by something that they actually wrote rather than snippets of sentences.

 

[Helldritch]

I've seen as many players opt to go against type by playing a jolly or practical jokester dwarf or serious/evil elf, as I have those who go against the types that are mechanically set.

Both options are great and combining the two is simply exquisite. Our halfling barb was dour, serious and dead set on being an unforgiving badass.

 

[Maxperson]

Every Mountain Dwarf can wear armor and use a hammer. As a commoner, that would mean they are swinging a normal blow that has a +1 to hit and deals 1d8+1 damage.

So your monster sees a dwarf in armor and with a hammer, then they run forward, and swing that hammer so it crashes in to the monsters friend with a boom of thunder that cracks their spine and sends them lifeless into the dirt. They made that attack with a +7 and dealt 2d8+4 damage. That is massively better than any dwarf they have ever seen before. Why don't they react with shock and surprise? Dwarves can't do this, dwarves attack at +1 and a deal 1d8+1 damage.

No. That's not accurate. First, a mountain dwarf commoner averages those stats, but not all commoners have completely average stats. Second, monsters are not going to typically be attacked by commoners. They are going to be attacked by dwarven berserkers with average of 16 strength(18 if mountain dwarf), and dwarven guards with an average of 13 strength(15 if mountain dwarf), and dwarven veterans with an average of 16 strength(18 if mountain dwarf), and the equivalent of dwarven knights with an average of 16 strength(18 if mountain dwarf) and so on. There isn't a soldier NPC that I see, but if there was it would probably have an average of 13 or 14, +2 for mountain dwarves.

Those monsters are going to be used to being hit for at LEAST 1d8+4 damage and hitting much more often than +1. More damage if the NPC type has a damage ability.

 

[Maxperson]

If it doesn't work out, another option that I've seen perhaps worth experimenting with is roll with average as the minimum. And if that still swings too high for you, you can always adjust the minimum down to your liking (average - # depending on hit die, etc).

We talked about that and discarded it as an option. We want the ability to roll low. We just don't want there to be enough low rolls to sink a PC in an edition where hit points are one of the things encounters are balanced around. 5e combat is hit point tag, where prior editions had other metrics.

 

[Helldritch]

We talked about that and discarded it as an option. We want the ability to roll low. We just don't want there to be enough low rolls to sink a PC in an edition where hit points are one of the things encounters are balanced around. 5e combat is hit point tag, where prior editions had other metrics.

Roll this way. It works out very well with my veteran group.
If previous level HP roll is equal to or below the average, next roll can't be below average. This moves the curve slightly toward better HP but it does allow for low rolls. It is not perfect but it is how my veterans like it. ( It was a player's idea). It forces you and your players to keep track of what was rolled during the leveling.

 

[Krachek]

I think there is some distinction to make with the term commoner.

Commoner is an entry in the monster manual.
Commoner is also an term use to describe common people in a society.

One refer to precise stats, the other refer to a relative status within a society.

So who said that a dwarf working in a mine is a commoner? either in term of the MM or the usual term. mine worker may be elite dwarf.
So a monster attacking a dwarf in a mine, should not have expectation.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A commoner is not a wizard. A commoner will not wear plate mail or anything beyond studded leather or maybe hide. In fact, a commoner might not even see a gold piece in his entire lives. The hammer your commoner might wield will not be a warhammer but a carpenter's one. At best a spear or a bow. Monsters will judge by the standards they meet, the adventurers. And since adventurers tend to emulate their heroes my point stands.

Maybe they won't, but a guard or a soldier isn't much better in terms of a challenge, and they certainly won't cause a thunderclap explosion.

So, now we already have a divide to take into account, there is the Dwarven non-adventurer and the Dwarven Adventurer. So, now tell me, once they have determined that these are adventurers how can they tell which people calling down death and explosions of raw power are to be expected and which ones are unusual and frightening? Is the Goliath charging them with a greatsword while the ground catches fire beneath them just ho-hum, or something to be feared because it is unexpected? What about that elf over there surrounded by the spirits of the dead who just killed two of your buddies with a single strike?

And what point is it "business as usual" compared to "strange and terriyfing"?

And what if, in your example, the armored dwarf meets the melee monsters with a wall of fire?

Then that is perfectly understandable and expected, doesn't even require the dwarf playing against type. In fact, dwarven heroes would likely often have used wall of fire.

Or your little halfling lifts the heavy orc and throws him into the the fire pit?

Is that really so unexpected? Doesn't take much to do that. Very doable by a halfling with 12 strength, which isn't even that strong for a halfling. Besides, is it any less terrifying than a dwarf throwing your friends into a fire pit?

Ho the dwarf is strong and meets the foe with a big bong of a big whammy hammer... nothing new. The strength and power of the blow can be surprising, but not unexpected. That same dwarf with a fire wall/ball has both and would force monsters to reconsider what they took for the absolute truth and could potentially make them make mistakes. Or seeing the strength base halfling grabbing the orc to throw it into the fire pit or clinging with one hand on the dragon's back and proceed to hack it with unsettling rage with his big... short sword.

I see, so a Dwarven artificer Battle Smith with a 16 Intelligence using Booming Blade is completely expected, of course they can do that. But a Dwarven Cleric is strange and confusing and will cause them to question their choices.

Aren't... clerics very archetypical choices for Dwarves? I swear I've heard that somewhere.

And like I said, that halfling wasn't even that strong. And clinging to a dragon's back could just as easily be a dex based halfling.

These are the images that playing against type can bring. Do we see those very often? Nope. But when we have one, we are happy because it is both unexpected and refreshing. But if every members of every races can do anything, it quickly fades into the usual. Other systems have gone this way and they are not even near the heel of D&D in popularity.

Or playing with type it seems. Since there are multiple routes to get to the same place.

Again, if you decide to have your monsters meta-game, that's on you, but it seems like you are just arbitrarily giving a boost to people who are unusual for no reason other than you didn't expect them to pick that combo.

 

[Maxperson]

Roll this way. It works out very well with my veteran group.
If previous level HP roll is equal to or below the average, next roll can't be below average. This moves the curve slightly toward better HP but it does allow for low rolls. It is not perfect but it is how my veterans like it. ( It was a player's idea). It forces you and your players to keep track of what was rolled during the leveling.

We did something similar. What we did is that if a player rolls low(1-2 on d6, 1-3 on d8, etc.) they have to roll high the next time out(5-6 on d6, 6-8 on d8, etc.). We ended up too close to the average for our tastes. We want hit points to be more swingy, but still not wipe someone out with low rolls. That's why I decided to try rolling hit points with advantage this time around. Low rolls are still possible, but it should be more swingy and swing higher. I just hope it doesn't go too high.

 

[Helldritch]

Maybe they won't, but a guard or a soldier isn't much better in terms of a challenge, and they certainly won't cause a thunderclap explosion.

So, now we already have a divide to take into account, there is the Dwarven non-adventurer and the Dwarven Adventurer. So, now tell me, once they have determined that these are adventurers how can they tell which people calling down death and explosions of raw power are to be expected and which ones are unusual and frightening? Is the Goliath charging them with a greatsword while the ground catches fire beneath them just ho-hum, or something to be feared because it is unexpected? What about that elf over there surrounded by the spirits of the dead who just killed two of your buddies with a single strike?

And what point is it "business as usual" compared to "strange and terriyfing"?



Then that is perfectly understandable and expected, doesn't even require the dwarf playing against type. In fact, dwarven heroes would likely often have used wall of fire.



Is that really so unexpected? Doesn't take much to do that. Very doable by a halfling with 12 strength, which isn't even that strong for a halfling. Besides, is it any less terrifying than a dwarf throwing your friends into a fire pit?



I see, so a Dwarven artificer Battle Smith with a 16 Intelligence using Booming Blade is completely expected, of course they can do that. But a Dwarven Cleric is strange and confusing and will cause them to question their choices.

Aren't... clerics very archetypical choices for Dwarves? I swear I've heard that somewhere.

And like I said, that halfling wasn't even that strong. And clinging to a dragon's back could just as easily be a dex based halfling.



Or playing with type it seems. Since there are multiple routes to get to the same place.

Again, if you decide to have your monsters meta-game, that's on you, but it seems like you are just arbitrarily giving a boost to people who are unusual for no reason other than you didn't expect them to pick that combo.

Ok. On you then. Show me a single official D&D book or novel set in a standard D&D world in which the examples I gave are the norm? And no Darksun is not a standard D&D world as it was pretty much built around shaking the standard expectations.
Go ahead. Find me a single one.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Depending on what one thinks 'balance' is sure. The curve did improve if the goal is a standard bell curve.

Green options would in a Floating list, include Aarakocra, and Stout Halfing, and if thats a good thing, is up to you.

I don't see what's strong about Halfing (Stout) as a race. They do get access to the one Halfing feat, and advantage on saving throws against poison and resistance to it are nice... but how important is that overall? Is poison a really big niche that having advantage and resistance to it is a big thing I am missing (I mainly looked at spells, and while Poison Spray is a nice cantrip, and Cloudkill is strong, that's still only two spells)?

As for Aarakocra, those are already a massive problem without Floating ASIs in low level campaigns (I have seen numerous places have houserules that restrict their flight until Tier 2 at the earliest, or just straight up ban them). There are likely a ton of campaigns where you could be a Barbarian or Sorcerer Aarakocra with Fixed ASIs and still dominate or do a shitton.

Really, races like Aarakocra, Yuan-Ti and Deep (and Svirfneblin) Gnome and Vedalken (advantage on all Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma saving throws? Really?!) prove races aren't balanced around their Fixed ASIs in this edition, as their benefits are so absurdly strong compared to a lot of races (Dragonborn, Kenku in certain campaigns, etc.). It's hard to tell how much WOTC would change their balance if Floating ASIs had always been an optional rule or the default from the start, but I don't honestly think it would change much; the races that are powerful in this edition are powerful regardless of their ASIs... and as that 5% difference doesn't matter too much, a Yuan-Ti Cleric is still going to be a nightmare to deal with (especially when the other players start to form a protective circle around them to ensure any non-magical creatures have a hard time getting to them).

This isn't even like Pathfinder 2e where some races are listed as explicitly uncommon or rare as a tag. Obviously not all races will be in all settings but a lot of the races included in the sourcebooks are, from what I know, in Forgotten Realms. Which, if we're going off average population and that 5% difference being important population wide (but not... individually...)... can someone explain to me why Yuan-Ti haven't wiped spellcasters out yet?

(As an aside... I really hope 6e does adapts Pathfinder 2e's labels and traits. No other rules would have to change to support this; you'd just rewrite how spells are written, and it'd make it very easy to see what a spell does without having its power and flavour text mixed together).