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

[Maxperson]

Spells you just used one of to confirm that you may possibly run into a dragon. Likely lost when the DM gave you a hint and you used it to confirm. And what if you "know" there is a dragon, but it is the innkeeper in the town you just left and you never encounter them while traveling? Now you have spent a spell slot to waste resources saving them for an event that will never happen, based off bad information that you couldn't have even gotten without using this ability.

If you're fighting a dragon, that 1st level spell that you used wasn't going to be much use. Certainly far less use that the planning that you can do.

I'm sorry Max, there is no way to make this ability good. Any sort of "we know what is around" that this allows is more easily allowed through simple DM foreshadowing. Which is free, and doesn't end up nearly as imprecise.

Yeeeeaaahhh, you aren't going to get foreshadowing about something that is miles away. When you get close, sure, but you 1) may never get close if you don't look for it, which you won't if you don't know about it, and 2) won't be prepared for if you do, since you're.....................close.

Which is why the support by the other analysis's which show that a 16 is the most likely baseline for attributes, by being the average of the roll, by being the most likely number from putting your standard array into a race that follows the archetype, and it being the best you can do with the point-buy and getting an archetypical race, is so important. Because that shows the 16 is supported, and that that number also follows the design intent.

It's supported by confirmation bias. They assume a 16, and therefore the math shows a 16. If they assumed 14, the math would also show that. They arbitrarily picked 65%.

Dude. They kept rolling because everyone was going to do it anyways. Rolling has been part of DnD since Chainmail. They weren't going to cut it. They had no choice but to keep it, but they knew not everyone liked random stats, which is why the array was included.

You literally cannot roll for stats in the Adventuring League, because they aren't equivalent methods.

HOWEVER, just because a single person rolls above the average doesn't disprove the existence of the average. Nor is a single person rolls below it. Or even if ten people roll above it. Because that isn't how statistics work. Claiming that the game can only be designed or conceived of at the group level, and not the level of the game as it is played by millions of people is ridiculous, because then the concept of balance wouldn't even be a discussion point.

Yada yada yada Strawman yada. Nobody, especially me, has argued anything about disproving the existence of the average. Your constant twisting of my arguments is becoming tiresome.

 

[Lyxen]

Whichever way you want to slice it, racial ASIs are far less potentially "racist" than differences in skin color, ear shape, eye shape, size, etc. It's getting up in arms at the small stuff and they being perfectly fine with the big stuff.

Indeed, and once more, the most racists elements are not in the PH but in the MM, because assuming that you are talking about PCs only, solving their ASI "problem" will not change the fact that all the populations in the game world will see the stats and the descriptions (physical, intellectual and moral) of the orc in the MM.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If you're fighting a dragon, that 1st level spell that you used wasn't going to be much use. Certainly far less use that the planning that you can do.

Planning for what? All you know is that somewhere there is a dragon doing something. And a first level spell slot is immensely helpful against Faerie Dragons, Psuedodragons, or Guard drakes. Because, in case you've forgotten, those are dragons too. So, how do you plan when this is what you know.

Somewhere within 6 miles there is a a True Dragon or a Dragon Turtle or a Psuedodragon or a Faerie Dragon or a Guard drake or a Wyvern. You don't know which, you don't know how many, you don't know where.

Maybe there is a warlock in the inn behind with their psuedodragon familiar, maybe an ancient green dragon sleeps in these woods, maybe there is a large lake where a Dragon Turtle has nested. You have no idea. And if you see a flight of Faerie Dragons do you let down your guard? They clearly pinged you, but does that mean that there isn't a group of kobolds riding Guard drakes waiting to ambush you in the name of their Queen dragon?

There is no plan you can make beyond "keep an eye out for any danger" because you don't know anything.

Yeeeeaaahhh, you aren't going to get foreshadowing about something that is miles away. When you get close, sure, but you 1) may never get close if you don't look for it, which you won't if you don't know about it, and 2) won't be prepared for if you do, since you're.....................close.

If I put it in the world, even if it is miles away, then of course I'm foreshadowing it, because I want the players to know what's coming. And you have to remember six miles is 2 hours on foot. A mile is 20 minutes. Something that close is going to leave signs, especially signs a trained survivalist like a ranger would notice.

It's supported by confirmation bias. They assume a 16, and therefore the math shows a 16. If they assumed 14, the math would also show that. They arbitrarily picked 65%.

No, it isn't. And frankly, you've demonstrated enough of a lack of understanding how statistics work I don't see the point in trying to convince you further.

You literally cannot roll for stats in the Adventuring League, because they aren't equivalent methods.

"Someone made a rule to prevent randomness, therefore the standard array can't equal the average, because if it did adventurer's league would allow you to roll above and below the average."

Non-sequitur and a poor argument.

Yada yada yada Strawman yada. Nobody, especially me, has argued anything about disproving the existence of the average. Your constant twisting of my arguments is becoming tiresome.

And your inability to understand that the five rolls of a single table didn't matter in the balance of the game design is equally tiresome.

I've shown the average. I've shown the array. I've explained the minor difference between them, and supported that with point-buy's methods. I don't care if you refuse to see it, the obvious is obvious.

 

[Bill Zebub]

absorb elements

 

[Maxperson]

Planning for what? All you know is that somewhere there is a dragon doing something. And a first level spell slot is immensely helpful against Faerie Dragons, Psuedodragons, or Guard drakes. Because, in case you've forgotten, those are dragons too. So, how do you plan when this is what you know.

Somewhere within 6 miles there is a a True Dragon or a Dragon Turtle or a Psuedodragon or a Faerie Dragon or a Guard drake or a Wyvern. You don't know which, you don't know how many, you don't know where.

Maybe there is a warlock in the inn behind with their psuedodragon familiar, maybe an ancient green dragon sleeps in these woods, maybe there is a large lake where a Dragon Turtle has nested. You have no idea. And if you see a flight of Faerie Dragons do you let down your guard? They clearly pinged you, but does that mean that there isn't a group of kobolds riding Guard drakes waiting to ambush you in the name of their Queen dragon?

There is no plan you can make beyond "keep an eye out for any danger" because you don't know anything.

All I can say is that not everyone needs to know ever little detail about everything in order to plan. It doesn't work for you. Okay. It does work for others.

The ranger ability isn't the best one I've see, but not only is it not the detriment that you claimed, it's not even useless.

If I put it in the world, even if it is miles away, then of course I'm foreshadowing it, because I want the players to know what's coming. And you have to remember six miles is 2 hours on foot. A mile is 20 minutes. Something that close is going to leave signs, especially signs a trained survivalist like a ranger would notice.

I guess it's a difference in playstyles. I don't put things in the world and expect that the PCs will encounter them. I put them in the world, because it makes sense for them to be there. If the PCs go there, they will encounter it. If they go another direction, they might never know it existed and will eventually encounter something else in the world.

"Someone made a rule to prevent randomness, therefore the standard array can't equal the average, because if it did adventurer's league would allow you to roll above and below the average."

If they were equivalent methods, the league wouldn't care which one you used. It wouldn't matter.

 

[Chaosmancer]

All I can say is that not everyone needs to know ever little detail about everything in order to plan. It doesn't work for you. Okay. It does work for others.

The ranger ability isn't the best one I've see, but not only is it not the detriment that you claimed, it's not even useless.

I have never heard of anyone saying anything good about this ability, unless they've homebrewed it. This isn't "every little detail" this is literally any details. What kinds of plans do you make with "something with the dragon subtype is within 6 miles of your location" that you wouldn't be making in general anyways?

I guess it's a difference in playstyles. I don't put things in the world and expect that the PCs will encounter them. I put them in the world, because it makes sense for them to be there. If the PCs go there, they will encounter it. If they go another direction, they might never know it existed and will eventually encounter something else in the world.

Sure, but I don't have time to plot out every square mile and populate it. Which is what this ability would require, knowing everything within a potential range of hundreds of square miles, because the PCs might travel north ten miles before using this ability, or south or east. So, at least 16 square miles just from that.

And what if they are traveling for a week and cover 70 square miles? This is just too large of an area to work with reasonably. My worlds aren't that fully detailed, I don't have that kind of time.

If they were equivalent methods, the league wouldn't care which one you used. It wouldn't matter.

They care because one is random, and because of randomness you could have a person with very high scores playing with someone with very low scores.

Additionally, Adventurer's League allows you to bring your own characters. This means that they need a standardized way to evaluate if a character was made properly. They aren't going to have DMs sit there just to watch people roll stats, and even if they did, they know that some DMs would allow players to simply reroll until they were happy. So, to keep things fair and balanced in an anomalous situation, they enforce a standardized array.

And since I've never claimed that rolling can't provide higher stats, or lower stats, and actually that variance is the reason some people like the standard array, you are proving nothing.

 

[Maxperson]

I have never heard of anyone saying anything good about this ability, unless they've homebrewed it. This isn't "every little detail" this is literally any details. What kinds of plans do you make with "something with the dragon subtype is within 6 miles of your location" that you wouldn't be making in general anyways?

Sure, but I don't have time to plot out every square mile and populate it. Which is what this ability would require, knowing everything within a potential range of hundreds of square miles, because the PCs might travel north ten miles before using this ability, or south or east. So, at least 16 square miles just from that.

And what if they are traveling for a week and cover 70 square miles? This is just too large of an area to work with reasonably. My worlds aren't that fully detailed, I don't have that kind of time.

This really isn't a big enough deal to me to argue any longer than this. You do you and I will do me.

They care because one is random, and because of randomness you could have a person with very high scores playing with someone with very low scores.

Exactly. They aren't equivalent methods. If they were equivalent, the randomness wouldn't matter.

And since I've never claimed that rolling can't provide higher stats, or lower stats, and actually that variance is the reason some people like the standard array, you are proving nothing.

Except that they are not equivalent methods. The wild variance proves that.