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

[Lyxen]

For someone who likes to complain about rules lawyering, you do like repeatedly throwing around accusations here in ENWorld that people don't read the books and are somehow being immoral people for it.

Oh, they read very well (much too well, when the devs tell that it's not necessary ) some parts of the books, namely all those filled with technical rules, but they also totally ignore as fluff all the recommandations about running a game in a different mode than hardcore technical, and in particular storytelling mode, which is the default mode as presented by the devs, and seem to prefer more adversarial conditions of playing.

As for playing 5e like 3/3.5/PF being immoral, it's your opinion, not mine. Despite having enjoyed these game quite a lot when they came out, I really think now, in hindsight, that some of the spirit that it created in the community is certainly not as good as the spirit promulgated by 5e, but I would not call that immoral. It's a different way to play the game, one that I enjoy much less, but YCMV and to each his own.

 

[Aldarc]

Oh, they read very well (much too well, when the devs tell that it's not necessary ) some parts of the books, namely all those filled with technical rules, but they also totally ignore as fluff all the recommandations about running a game in a different mode than hardcore technical, and in particular storytelling mode, which is the default mode as presented by the devs, and seem to prefer more adversarial conditions of playing.

You are painting with your brush far too broadly while also being thinly OneTrueWayism with your declarations about what the devs intend.

As for playing 5e like 3/3.5/PF being immoral, it's your opinion, not mine. Despite having enjoyed these game quite a lot when they came out, I really think now, in hindsight, that some of the spirit that it created in the community is certainly not as good as the spirit promulgated by 5e, but I would not call that immoral. It's a different way to play the game, one that I enjoy much less, but YCMV and to each his own.

Ummm... no it's not, so I would recommend retracting that assertion.

My opinion is that you seem to be getting into a nasty habit of accusing others of not reading the books, which you may as well insult their intelligence while you are at it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Cool. Will you acknowledge that there are just as many that use only the standard array and don't allow rolling?

I've never seen or heard of anyone doing that, but I'm sure they exist. They are likely worried about the mechanical swing of rolled stats unbalancing the game. I would say that they would be far better served finding a rolling ruleset that flattens to the curve to prevent that swing, rather than outright banning it. There are many many rolling systems, and I'm sure one of them is designed with that in mind.

Then I expect you to be complaining to WotC that they are controlling your character by only allowing you 1 class at first level. That's the same level of control that not being able to use the array is.

No, not even close, and you know it. Being able to have two classes at level 1 is MASSIVELY overpowered. Such a PC would overshadow every other character at the table. This does not happen with taking the standard array. In fact, if you take the standard array and someone else rolls well, you are likely to be weaker than them. This is why WoTC made both options standard. You can try the false equivalence game all you want, but most things you are going to try and pull are going to be pure power increases, and the Standard Array is not.

And in a very recent thread on druids, I argued very strongly that the not wearing metal armor was a fluff choice and not a rule, and that if a druid wanted to put on metal armor I'd allow it. I said repeatedly in that thread that while I've never had a player ask to have his druid wear metal, it would be fine by me if that druid opted to break the in-fiction taboo. I also said that there might be in-fiction consequences for the taboo violation if it was discovered by other druids.

Ah right, my apologies. I was misremembering your position on the Druid. That one is my bad.

Um, no. That might be the most fun for YOUR table, but it's not at mine. You do you. I'm going to do me. We're both going to have fun that way.

As long as no one who wants to have different fun tries to go to your table, then you kick them, because they aren't conforming to your fun.

They've self-banned it for being stupid, but no, I wouldn't ban it.

So, someone comes to your table wanting to use Thieves Cant, which you think is dumb and you don't like, and you are fine with it. Someone comes to your table wanting to use the standard array, which you think is dumb and you don't like, and you are going to ask them to leave because the only fun allowed at your table is rolling stats. This is part of my issue Max, this is just an arbitrary decision you made, something I know personally has impacted friends (not at your table specifically) and there is no reason for it.

None. There is no reason not to allow the standard array. It constantly just comes down to "I personally like rolling stats" but the PHB specifically offered the array for people who DON'T like rolling stats. It isn't an option for you, you weren't their intended audience, and yet you've decided that anyone who doesn't like randomized stats isn't welcome at your table, because you have more fun with rolled stats. It just comes across as incredibly selfish.

They can't assume that any specific individual is going to use the array, though. The math has to take into account the 20% of rollers who will only end up with lower numbers.

And it does, that is the 10% of the player base. Saying that about half of all people will use one of two options isn't assuming any "specific" individual is using the array, it is assuming the array is being used by part of the player base. Now, this is obviously not the most accurate data, but when they were designing the game and had 0 players because it wasn't released, this is exactly the type of assumptions they would have worked from.

Apporximately 90% of the player base is going to have a 15 before racial ASI.

Quote that please.

Well, since they never once state that any of the rules are "realistic" how about I do some quick equivalence instead. You say that rolling is realistic (the game does not, it makes no comment on how realistic rolling is. This is your personal assumption). The Devs said that the array is equal to rolling in basically all ways. There was no commentary on it being different in any way other than being less random for the specific individual character. Therefore, it should be equally realistic.

Just like every Monster having identical stats. It is simply an abstraction to move the game along.

It's BECAUSE you counter with real life. I'm just talking about realism, which is a spectrum with real life at one extreme. I don't do extremes. Why? Because extremes are generally wrong. That would explain why when you go to the real world extreme, you end up either wrong or talking about something completely irrelevant to the discussion almost every time.

So, you are going to call on "realism" by lightly referencing the real world. I show you that the real world doesn't conform to your "realism" and I'm wrong because there is an extreme end of the spectrum? The point is that you are clinging to a very specific part of that continuum, and making bold claims based entirely upon how "real" it is, but it isn't real. And if it isn't real, and that level of realism isn't impacted by simply letting things shift slightly, then claiming we can't change it because it wouldn't be "real" any more is a bit of nonsense.

 

[Older Beholder]

.

 

[Lyxen]

You are painting with your brush far too broadly while also being thinly OneTrueWayism with your declarations about what the devs intend.

It's funny, because I've been asking for years, and and no one has ever been able to show me a shred of evidence that proves that the intent was other than the one I show here. It's repeated multiple times in the rulebooks, and the rules have demonstrably written with this intent in mind. But by all means, please provide any evidence that you have, as long as it's more than "but there are rules in the rulebooks", because that one has been debunked a long time ago.

Ummm... no it's not, so I would recommend retracting that assertion.

I'm really not sure which one I should retract, especially in the face of such a clever counterargument.

My opinion is that you seem to be getting into a nasty habit of accusing others of not reading the books, which you may as well insult their intelligence while you are at it.

Well, you see, I am under the impression that it is my intelligence which is being insulted when one tells me that I'm a bad DM for not divulging in advance all the physical and magical rules in the universe just because someone wants to optimise a cantrip for its use a few levels down the progression...

 

[Aldarc]

It's funny, because I've been asking for years, and and no one has ever been able to show me a shred of evidence that proves that the intent was other than the one I show here. It's repeated multiple times in the rulebooks, and the rules have demonstrably written with this intent in mind. But by all means, please provide any evidence that you have, as long as it's more than "but there are rules in the rulebooks", because that one has been debunked a long time ago.

I suspect that you are grossly exaggerating your claim here.

I'm really not sure which one I should retract, especially in the face of such a clever counterargument.

The one where you strawman me. It's rude. Cut it out.

Well, you see, I am under the impression that it is my intelligence which is being insulted when one tells me that I'm a bad DM for not divulging in advance all the physical and magical rules in the universe just because someone wants to optimise a cantrip for its use a few levels down the progression...

There's a lot of bad faith arguing involved when you accuse people of not having read the books.

 

[Lyxen]

I suspect that you are grossly exaggerating your claim here.

And again, no evidence...

The one where you strawman me. It's rude. Cut it out.

Please, where is the strawman, exactly ? You were the one claiming the use of the word "immoral" (which is clearly you strawmanning me, by the way), this is a simple truth, verifiable easily by reading this post. I was particularly shocked, by the way, because the only thing I've said is that people insist on playing 5e as if it was one of the previous editions, and I'm still not sure how that is immoral in any way.

There's a lot of bad faith arguing involved when you accuse people of not having read the books.

Alright, I should have been more precise on this point, it's not that they are not reading them, they are reading them with a large confirmation bias (it has rules that bear some ressemblance to those of a previous edition, so it must be more or less the same game where rules matter and where the reigns are in the hands of the players). Everyone has bias, confirmation and others, so I hope it's not a slight, and I have it too. But still, ignoring the intent of the game and the repeated messages from the designers all over the place and on social media, all confirming that you will not get definitive answers on rules nitpicking, always leaving the door open to DM interpretation should have made the general intent clear.

Again, not that the game cannot be played in a myriad of different ways and generate fun, but in my biased but confirmed opinion: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

 

[Krachek]

In a world where any play is rated and have a win rate, I think it’s important to fight back and use rolled stats!

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

What has clearly not stopped is the powergamers insatiable thirst for combos and optimisation of DPR. But as you can see in the example below,

That it worked for you isn't proof that it works universally and doesn't remove the proof that discussions are still happening on these boards, despite the purported qualities of "natural language". Unless you consider most contributors to these threads on many forums to all be insatiatable powergamers who purposefully refuse the properties of the writing. Actually this might be the source of the disconnect: you seem to think anything is related to powergaming even when there is really no hint of it or even when you are clearly told that it isn't the case, for example in the frostball case.

Oh yes, because any DM not able to make in advance all the rulings that will be needed for a campaign is so stupid that he will change things on a whim and have less memory than a fish in its bowl. What a convincing argument.

My point:

An alternative is the dreaded "mother may I" approach of asking the GM every time (because rulings can change at the DM's whim

The position you held yesterday :

The fact that the designers tell you, up front that rules do not matter and that a DM is expected to make many rulings during a game shows you that creating builds based on rules is futile, because the rules are not precise enough and can in any case be changed at a whim's notice by the DM.

It's basically because you argued that rules can be changed at a whim's notice by the DM that I included the provision that you can't rely on a former ruling, according to your statement about designer's intent. If rulings can "be changed at a whi'ms notice by the DM", there is a risk that today's horse isn't exactly the same as yesterday's horse. Generally, I'd have said " a DM must be consistent" but I wouldn't have been able to provide a quote of the rules with page number. So I accept your position that it can be inconsistent... so asking is needed.

Yet:

Oh yes, because any DM not able to make in advance all the rulings that will be needed for a campaign is so stupid that he will change things on a whim and have less memory than a fish in its bowl. What a convincing argument.

And

But of course, we have to be morons incapable of remembering things and deciding on a whim every single time. What a joke.

I am pretty unable to get what is your position in this debate. Are you in favor of consistent ruling (so they become, in effect, supplemental rules) or are you in favor of malleable ruling (so the players can't rely with certainty on former experience and is better of asking in case ruling changed for some reason, good or bad). My position is that rulings are just a collection of house rules to fill the gap left by the natural language, so they must be consistent, but that didn't seem to fly with you yesterday.

But at least you have stepped back

Not that i know of. My point was clearly stated it was rulings pertaining to the character's capabilities. Which covers what is on his character sheet and what to expect when jumping on a horse or hanging from a chandelier.

Oh yes, the (in)famous list of rulings. You know what, in 3e, after a few years of play, we had 20 pages of local rulings, probably thanks to the jargon used, that people still had trouble remembering and that needed update every time a supplement came out.

Now, in 5e, we have... nothing. With the same players and DMs, and about the same length of time playing the game as intensely, we have not found the need to create even ONE permanent ruling that we need to explain and remember. How much simpler is that ? And in the end for a much, much greater enjoyment of the game, because we are not tied in by endless discussions of ruleslawyers and interminable combats.

Then please contribute to the many threads about, say, the Suggestion spell. They will clearly be helped by your way of resolving things, because after, what, 15 years, many contributors on this board still think it's unclear what that spell actually does (ranging from being Improved Dominate Person to being... exactly similar to a Persuasion check). Or on the Alert feat, given that many DM are giving ruling on what being surprised is and works. That your table doesn't have a problem with the way rules are written in 5e doesn't mean noone has or that they are all powergamers trying to abuse the system.

And where I'd like a rule to determine what the Suggestion spell actually does, I am left with "provide a ruling to your table". Which means it's the GM work to find a suitable and balanced solution, instead of relying on the book I bought to give me this information.

With regards to using standard array and banning rolling :

I've never seen or heard of anyone doing that, but I'm sure they exist.

My table has. It was standard array for all during two campaigns. One even had "mandatory pregens" at first.

 

[Aldarc]

And again, no evidence...

It's worth considering whether your confirmation bias is at play here too.

Consider this. From what I recall, you said earlier that the intent of the game didn't include any notions of the players accumulating power or wealth. I responded that if you read the Introduction of the PHB that there is more in the Introduction than that little snippet that you quoted, which also includes the writers talking about the player characters gaining power, levels, treasure, and magic artifacts as they adventure. So is your statement really true that nobody offered "no shred of evidence" against what you regard as the intent? This is one reason why I think it's safe to say that your statement was grossly exaggerated.

What does it say about the game's intent when it writes, "The adventurers grow in might as the campaign continues. Each monster defeated, each adventure completed, and each treasure recovered not only adds to the continuing story, but also earns the adventurers new capabilities. This increase in power is reflected by an adventurer's leveI."

To me at least, this suggests that part of the game's intent is for the PCs to acquire power and new abilities through gaining levels and acquiring magical items through adventures. There is also a Iot in how 5e is written to support this too. I also don't think that this somehow invalidates the idea that the PCs and GM are coming together "to create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils." But a lot of the game's intent is also built into the framework of character creation and progression as these often are meant to create incentives for continuing adventuring.

And when "Optimizing" is a considered a valid play engagement for players or style of play in the "Know Your Players" section of the 5e DMG alongside "Storytelling" and "Acting," then maybe we shouldn't cast aspersions at players who like to optimize in 5e.

Please, where is the strawman, exactly ? You were the one claiming the use of the word "immoral" (which is clearly you strawmanning me, by the way), this is a simple truth, verifiable easily by reading this post. I was particularly shocked, by the way, because the only thing I've said is that people insist on playing 5e as if it was one of the previous editions, and I'm still not sure how that is immoral in any way.

It seemed to me that you were saying that it was my argument that these people are immoral. I did not make that claim that they are immoral. I said, much as you link here, that you seem to have attached an almost moral judgment to your accusations that these people (whoever they may be in a given argument) have not read the PHB or aren't running the game as you have declared "as intended." I don't think that sort of presumption of bad faith is necessarily the healthiest way to be going about this conversation. It can most definitely come across as a drive-by insult to people who you happen to be arguing against.

Alright, I should have been more precise on this point, it's not that they are not reading them, they are reading them with a large confirmation bias (it has rules that bear some ressemblance to those of a previous edition, so it must be more or less the same game where rules matter and where the reigns are in the hands of the players). Everyone has bias, confirmation and others, so I hope it's not a slight, and I have it too. But still, ignoring the intent of the game and the repeated messages from the designers all over the place and on social media, all confirming that you will not get definitive answers on rules nitpicking, always leaving the door open to DM interpretation should have made the general intent clear.

Again, not that the game cannot be played in a myriad of different ways and generate fun, but in my biased but confirmed opinion: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

My issue is more with bad faith accusations that people haven't read the book. There are IMHO better ways to broach the subject of what you may see as the designer's intent for 5e and/or your own game preferences when approaching it.

That said, I do sometimes advise caution when it comes to what the writers say about the game, particularly when dealing with general statements in the Introduction. Writers saying that their game is meant to be about fun or telling stories together doesn't necessarily tell me much about how to approach playing/running the game. I don't disagree that the game should be about fun or generating stories with the participants, but the actual design of the system and the play culture around the game may actually be promoting something different from what the game designers have said about their game. For example, let's take the bit that you quoted earlier about the game's intent:

If i'm not mistaken, the sentence is: "The adventurers can solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and other treasure."

No, every single time the intent is described, it's about creating a story. "Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."

What about this "design intent" is unique to D&D 5e and how it should be played rather than either another edition of D&D or another fantasy adventure TTRPG? I suspect that I could copy-paste these blurbs to nearly any fantasy adventure TTRPG without much issue.

IMHO, this seems less like statements about designer intent and more about announcing that it's a fantasy adventure TTRPG. There's basically no talks of mechanics or system here that would suggest how the designer's intent manifests in any meaningful way. Our main hints about the system in the Introduction involve vague snippets about "rolling dice," a separate DM role, and that PCs have levels.