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

[Scribe]

The fact that it’s a weight class event would indicate that overall body size is not the only quality we care about when it comes to weight lifting. Someone at the top of one weight class is not a worse weightlifter than someone at the bottom of another. That’s the point of having weight classes.

The point is to offer fair competition. There are a few weight classes that are at or very near (+/- 2KG) between both men and women. The records for the men are all higher, at a glance, even within weight classes which are comparable.

So you are right overall body size is not the only quality we care about. Not only is overall body size relevant, as expected the higher weight classes lift more, but also if you are a man or woman, is relevant.

No. An average man would probably be able to lift more weight than the average woman, but neither would be particularly good weightlifters. Men are not inherently better weightlifters than women.

By virtue of removing everything that is the same, yes they are.

• Training. Both train.
• Temperament of a competitor. Both are competitive.
• Interest in lifting. Both share interest in lifting.

All things being equal, what is the difference? Men, on average, probably lift more than women. Lifting weights, is 'lifting more' than someone else.

Remove everything else, what is left. Its lifting. If men on average lift more, then men on average make better weightlifters, and the records (I'm looking at olympics) bear this out.

And what does all this mostly irrelevant tangent of mine boil down to?

Goliaths should be better Barbarians with a +2 to Str, and should on average be stronger than Halfings or Gnomes.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

You said you didn't want to have a "disadvantaged" orc wizard b/c other races have bonuses that are good for wizards.

Actually I was getting at the old DnD trope of orcs having low intelligence. But I did not make that clear. Sorry.

Would it be okay for other races to have abilities that are good for wizards as long as they aren't "stats"?

The orc would still be "disadvantaged," that's what I'm getting at.

Maybe. I'd have to see the advantage to know. But my gut reaction is "no problem." Do you mean, maybe, fire folk cast fire spells at a higher level and thereby are intrinsically better at fire spells than others? I'm cool with that.

My issue is not that some other character might be better at X, but that if I want to play a character it shouldn't start at a point below the baseline unless I want it to. If I play a wizard who's good at wizarding then I want them to be good at wizarding. If I want them to be a bit sub-par then I'll build them a bit sub-par (and put the points saved into something else.)

 

[Charlaquin]

By virtue of removing everything that is the same, yes they are.

• Training. Both train.
• Temperament of a competitor. Both are competitive.
• Interest in lifting. Both share interest in lifting.

None of these things are a given for any man or any woman. That’s the point, neither men nor women are inherently weightlifters at all, therefore it can’t accurately be said that either are inherently better weightlifters than the other. What can be said is that the average strength of men who become weightlifters is statistically likely to be greater than the average strength of women who become weightlifters.

All things being equal, what is the difference? Men, on average, probably lift more than women. Lifting weights, is 'lifting more' than someone else.

I don’t disagree.

Remove everything else, what is left. Its lifting. If men on average lift more, then men on average make better weightlifters, and the records (I'm looking at olympics) bear this out.

Why would you remove everything else? That’s a stupid thing to do, everything else is also relevant.

And what does all this mostly irrelevant tangent of mine boil down to?

Goliaths should be better Barbarians with a +2 to Str, and should on average be stronger than Halfings or Gnomes.

No, they should not be inherently better Barbarians (because that echoes biological essentialism), and giving them +2 strength makes them inherently better Barbarians because of the way ability scores interact with class in D&D.

 

[Scribe]

Why would you remove everything else? That’s a stupid thing to do, everything else is also relevant.

Because if you can remove anything that boils down to choice, and either man or woman can choose to become a weightlifter, then you only have 1 thing remaining.

A: On average, men lift more by virtue of their biology, than women.
B: Weightlifting, is the act of lifting weight in a specific motion.

If A is true, then yes, on average, men will be better weightlifter's than women.

No, they should not be inherently better Barbarians (because that echoes biological essentialism), and giving them +2 strength makes them inherently better Barbarians because of the way ability scores interact with class in D&D.

No they should be, because they had +2 Str, and the other races did not, and as Goliath's are larger, and stronger by virtue of this, and their other rules, they should be the better (not only, not 'only viable') option.

You can still go ahead and make one as a Gnome, or a Halfling. Nobody is stopping you pre-Tasha's, or certainly not post-Tasha's.

I played a Tiefling with a -2 Cha modifier Paladin. It factually could be done. Nobody was holding a gun to my head saying I HAD to play an optimal min/max, and yes an Aasimar would have been better, but this is a game, and I prefer my games with things to work with, against, and around however the mood hits.

Regardless, just like with Canon. Just like with Alignment. Just like with ASI in a post-Tasha's world.

I've already lost, you all won, and it wont make a difference at all when the next edition drops and I walk away while you all get your 'post problematic' version.

 

[Charlaquin]

You know what’s a game that manages to have ancestral ability score bonuses, and even ability score penalties, without them being biologically essentialist? Pathfinder 2e. The way ability scores are generated in that game, you can start with an 18 in your primary ability, a 14 in two secondary abilities, a 12 in an ability of your choice and 10s in your other abilities, regardless of your ancestry and class combination. Or if you don’t want to be quite as min/maxy, you can get 18, 14, 12, 12, 12, 10. It’s great because you get the flavor of the ancestral ability score adjustments, but every race is still equally viable for any class. And they do it by having background, class, and your own personal choice all play a role in determining your starting ability scores. Yes, dwarves may be a bit stronger and tougher (though less charismatic) on average than elves, but if an elf wants to become a Barbarian, through their background experiences, their training as a Barbarian, and their own hard work and dedication, they can overcome that slight statistical disadvantage and become as good a Barbarian as any dwarf. Now that’s some good game design!

 

[Scribe]

You know what’s a game that manages to have ancestral ability score bonuses, and even ability score penalties, without them being biologically essentialist? Pathfinder 2e. The way ability scores are generated in that game, you can start with an 18 in your primary ability, a 14 in two secondary abilities, a 12 in an ability of your choice and 10s in your other abilities, regardless of your ancestry and class combination. Or if you don’t want to be quite as min/maxy, you can get 18, 14, 12, 12, 12, 10. It’s great because you get the flavor of the ancestral ability score adjustments, but every race is still equally viable for any class. And they do it by having background, class, and your own personal choice all play a role in determining your starting ability scores. Yes, dwarves may be a bit stronger and tougher (though less charismatic) on average than elves, but if an elf wants to become a Barbarian, through their background experiences, their training as a Barbarian, and their own hard work and dedication, they can overcome that slight statistical disadvantage and become as good a Barbarian as any dwarf. Now that’s some good game design!

There are certainly better ways to do ASI than a hard 2/1, or a formless tasha's 2/1. I have such a system, it works great and makes your other choices meaningful.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because if you can remove anything that boils down to choice, and either man or woman can choose to become a weightlifter, then you only have 1 thing remaining.

But CHOICE MATTERS. In many cases, perhaps most cases, it matters more than some slight statistical disadvantage.

A: On average, men lift more by virtue of their biology, than women.

Not disputing this.

B: Weightlifting, is the act of lifting weight in a specific motion.

Being a weightlifter is about much more than just how much weight you are able to lift. Are you a man? Are there women who are better weightlifters than you? Then clearly, men are not inherently better weightlifters than women.

If A is true, then yes, on average, men will be better weightlifter's than women.

Again, the average man can lift more weight than the average woman. Neither are weightlifters. The best male weightlifter is also probably better than the best female weightlifter. None of this means men, by their essential, immutable nature, are better weightlifters than women are by their essential, immutable nature.

No they should be, because they had +2 Str, and the other races did not, and as Goliath's are larger, and stronger by virtue of this, and their other rules, they should be the better (not only, not 'only viable') option.

You can still go ahead and make one as a Gnome, or a Halfling. Nobody is stopping you pre-Tasha's, or certainly not post-Tasha's.

I played a Tiefling with a -2 Cha modifier Paladin. It factually could be done. Nobody was holding a gun to my head saying I HAD to play an optimal min/max, and yes an Aasimar would have been better, but this is a game, and I prefer my games with things to work with, against, and around however the mood hits.

See my post about Ancestral ASIs in PF2.

Regardless, just like with Canon. Just like with Alignment. Just like with ASI in a post-Tasha's world.

I've already lost, you all won, and it wont make a difference at all when the next edition drops and I walk away while you all get your 'post problematic' version.

Well, at least you’re self-aware about it I guess.

 

[Scribe]

Well, at least you’re self-aware about it I guess

Quite, I called it with the UA for the Reborn and Hex blood.

As soon as there was outcry that Tasha's was an option, it was bound to lead to more things being removed.

 

[Maxperson]

So, on average, an elephant "species" would need a +100 to strength to capture that difference from a human. A +2? A difference of 30 lbs? That is nothing. Yes, an elephant is obviously stronger than a dog. But the difference between PCs never reaches these levels in "real-world logic". Mechanically, in the game where +2 is supposed to make a difference to accuracy and damage? It makes a difference. World-building wise though? This is nothing that would actually differentiate. It is a tiny tiny difference.

This argument just means that no race should ever get a bonus at all, because extreme creatures would have 100+ in the stat. Or else we can understand that the stat system breaks down at the higher end, so creatures like elephants are weaker in numbers than they should be and those in the more normal ranges have appropriate bonuses.

 

[Maxperson]

Now, I don't know modern weightlifting, but I do know history. And that includes the story of Katie Sandwina, who was a circus performer and strongwoman. Really strongwoman. She would challenge the audience to try and match her lifting, a good show for back in the early 1900's. Until one show when the man who stepped forth was Eugen Sandow, internationally recognized as the strongest man in the world.

And, as you guessed, she beat him.

This is the fundamental difference. This is the thing that we are all going to say is obvious, but the paradigms constructed by determinism say cannot happen. Anybody can reach the top. Sure, it could be unlikely that a woman is going to beat the men's weightlifting gold. It might even be a difference that we say is insurmountable. But we can't determine what is possible, we can only determine what is likely.

Modern weightlifting is a very different beast. Back then they didn't have the training knowhow that we do today. Being the strongest man in the world in the early 1900's means nothing compared to weightlifters today.

In the 1920 Olympics, the record for men's heavyweight was 260kg. In the 2020(1) Olympics the women's heavyweight gold performance was 320kg. The men's heavyweight gold performance was 488kg.