• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

le Redoutable

Ich bin El Glouglou :)
oh! you're speaking of Size !
fortunes of War ( Iron Maiden )
no.
found an incomplete Monstrous Compendium ( 2E )

1 : Tiny
2 : Small
3 : Medium
4 : Large
5 : Huge

in a 3D world you would have base Hit Points of ( Size Level ) ^3
so,
Tiny =====> 1 hp
Small ====> 8 hp
Medium ==> 27 hp
Large ====> 64 hp
Huge ====> 125 hp

when you enter 4th Dimension you get size level ^4 hit points ( lol )
Tiny =====> 1 hp
Small ====> 16 hp
Medium ==> 81 hp
Large ====> 256 hp
Huge ====> 625 hp
 

log in or register to remove this ad

All stereotypes are true, they just don't tell the whole story.
This is an incredibly dangerous mindset, and depends on what you mean about stereotypes and how much they pertain to something someone choices (I don't think any of us here would have issues with a lot of stereotypes of D&D players) versus something inate within a person our part of their cultural upbringing (which is... a lot of the most dangerous ones).
 

You know, something about this argument has always bugged me, and finally I have the context for why.

I recently watched a comedy news show (I think it was "More News") on "Critical Race Theory". I don't want to dive into politics, but this is important to my conception here. There is a lot of panic out there, things like "Critical Race Theory is being taught to kindergartners." Well, this news show pointed out that "Critical Race Theory" has been around for a few decades, and that it was a term for a specific view in legal philosophy, taught in schools like Harvard. To truly drive home his point about how it was not being taught to Kindergartners he played a clip of a guy who actually teaches this stuff explaining what it is on a news show. I got about... 10% of it. It is dense and complicated stuff that you truly and honestly need a deep understanding of the subject to even follow.

Why bring this up?

Because it demonstrates that taking a term out of its context, and just applying to other contexts can be highly misleading. And, it was with that thought that I did something I've never done in these discussions. I googled "What is biological Essentialism" This is the answer I got.

Biological essentialism depicts a process in which biological influences precede cultural influences and set predetermined limits to the effects of culture.
Right. And this is what I understand it to mean.

This comes from a paper that seems to have been written about sociology, but if this is the understanding of it... then that does sort of change your questions. But, I decided to go ahead and double check by googling a second question "Do Biologists use the term Biological essentialism" And, in simple terms, the answer I got was a paper talking about the place of "essentialism" in the history of biology and the relation it has with evolutionary theory. The idea coming in that "essentialism" was seen as an idea of unchanging essences.
I'm not sure what this means. Is it about pre-evolution understanding of biology via classical Platonian essentialism or something like that? Because that was a thing. I don't think that is in modern parlance meant by 'biological essentialism.'

So, with this new understanding I started looking back at some of these questions... and aren't they a bit silly in this context? "Of course wings set predetermined limits to the effect of culture on a person"? None of these abilities fall into this category. Now, to be fair, do "grace" or "strength" really fall into them either? Not necessarily. But, you can't have these without having intelligence or wisdom... and that does start getting into that territory.
I don't understand what you mean.

But we don't really talk about species and biology in this manner. We don't talk about "Biological Essentialism" in terms of birds, or insects, or anything else.
Yes. Because the concept really doesn't make sense to be used that way. Which was kinda my original point: that is weird to try use the term when talking about literal differnt species.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, since we are here, let's tackle a bit on the second argument that we see all the time. "Isn't species A stronger than Species B"?

It sounds reasonable at first, but there is a problem. See, the game just isn't set up to show the level of difference people are talking about in those instances. For example, Elephants can lift up to 7 tons, 14,000 lbs. Translating that into DnD? Huge Creature means str*4, lift is *30, reverse by dividing... A strength score of 116.

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.

Right. So because the game mechanics do not represent the difference realistically, the difference shouldn't be represented at all? Why do elephants then have a higher strength score than badgers? Should everyone just have the same strength score? Why we even have ability scores if they don't represent anything?
 

You know, I have to say that the question of "Do fantasy races have a place in fantasy literature going forward" is not an easy question if I take it seriously. I can imagine this is something that can be seriously struggled with and considered in terms of literature and philosophy for the next hundred years. Just like many other issues like this.

But... I'm not equipped to solve the social ills of hundreds of years of discrimination and find the perfect solution in the next... three hours of discussion. This is something that will need to be seen. I don't have the answer. How could I have the answer to what is going to be considered proper in 100 years? How do I have any insight into what is going to be determined as we navigate these waters?

But, at the same time... nobody in any of these discussions. Not one person has ever put forth that they desire all fantasy races to be forever and permanently erased from all fantasy. No one wants this. Nobody. We all think that is something we don't want to see.

So... can people stop bringing it up as some big scary monster problem that we are immediately being confronted with? I get it may be some future problem that we wrestle with as we wrestle with all changes to media. But, it isn't anything that we are actually going to be dealing with in DnD.
I fully understand that no one (well almost no one, I'm sure someone does) wants to get rid of fantasy species altogether.

But I think we should be able to honestly discuss what it means to have fantasy species and what we actually want to achieve by having them.
 

Which is a different thing than being inherently better weightlifters, which is the thing I had a problem with.

It is not.
How? How it is not exactly the same thing? Pre-Tasha's goliaths have a small mechanical benefit benefit that makes it a bit easier for them to be great at barbarian class. Post-Tasha they still have a huge mechanical benefit that makes it massively easier for them to be overwhelmingly better weightlifters than others. The only difference is that the latter is far greater and more fundamental difference.

It’s biological essentialism, which is indeed “a social justice issue.”
Your definition and application of 'biological essentialism' is not coherent.
 

This felt like an odd statement. On the one hand, I am not proposing creating stereotypes. And on the other hand, racism is about negatives, not positives, except where those positives are used to suggest negatives, which I am also not proposing. What is your example of something that is an unmitigated positive, and racist?
I would really not want to go into real racist tropes. But for example Asians are often labelled as intelligent, studious, disciplined and that sort of things. This is still not received well. Associating Africans with athleticism is another example.
 

That seems contradictory. It opens by assuming temperament should come out of evolved role - predator - and then ignores features that should tie to role evolved - flying, laser eyes (were such things possible). If being a predator would make my temperament X. Having laser eyes should make it Y. These are exactly as fundamental and interesting as differences.
Yes sure. Predator vs herbivore was just one simplified example. The difference in physicality will inform mentality. Being a flying cats with laser eyes no doubt will inform the mentality of the species. So that's why I find it super weird when people say that describing differing physicality is fine, but describing anything that may follow from it, be it being better at something or thinking differently is not... 🤷

Note I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you in saying that. What I think we are doing is trying to properly frame the problem, so that we know how to form and judge solutions. As I said, so far I have - not commensurable, not scalable, and if borderline cultural then called out as a feature of some, not all.

To my mind, assuming flying cat people all have temperament X due to their evolved role Y is risky. It goes right into stereotyping through oversimplification. So perhaps a desire for 'actually interesting differences' that are limited to temperament based on pseudo-scientific ideas about how erstwhile predators should behave post-sentience, is going to be problematic. It will provide narrative soil for the problems we have been talking about.
Temperaments are not really 'all Y are X, period.' It is more about tendency. You certainly could have a courageous rabbit or timid lion. But I don't think it should be controversial to say that on average rabbits are more timid than lions.
 

Yaarel

He-Mage
• Strength
• Dexterity
• Intelligence
• Charisma

Earlier, I mentioned dropping Constitution from the abilities because it is too passive. In this approach, it merges into Strength. Here the Strength-Constitution merger, emphasizes the aspect of "size". So a Strength score of 17 or higher is Large, or is at least the requirement for a character to be Large. In other words, this Strength merger is more like what some other systems call "Might". Big and tough.

Keep in mind, being Large turns out (accidentally) to balance in 5e. The limitation of only one reaction per round, means only one opportunity attack per round. Thus, reach can be nice, but doesnt matter too much because there is only one target per round. 5e can handle Large characters, well.

Hit points, size, Constitution, and Strength correlate strongly in D&D statistics. The divergences in this correlation can be understood as more like different skills that key off of Strength. Carrying capacity strongly correlates off of size. Thus Weighttraining is a skill that keys off of Strength, in the sense of size. Similarly, large "heavy" weapons also key off of Strength. Heavy armors to be effective also correlate with Strength. Big and tough is a trope, and Strength continues to handle both fortitude and hit points, as well as size, reach, access to heavy gear, and heavy damage dealing. In relation to the Weighttraining skill, Strength contests such as bend bars and lift gates, things that relate to "brute force", are Strength (Weighttraining) checks. Because the need for "endurance training" is too passive, and seldom happens during a D&D game, the Weighttraining skill also handles any endurance training checks that happen every now and then. So, swimming in a stormy sea might call for a Strength (Weighttraining) check in the sense of fortitude and resisting any undertow of waves.

Strength becomes highly appealing ability, considering the heavier damage, the application of brute force to overcome obstacles, the higher hit points, the fortitude, and the flavor of being big and tough can be fun.

Strength correlates with size. Here, the dwarf concept now tends toward a high Strength concept in the sense toughness, but not size in the sense of tallness. In my setting, it is because the dwarf is actually made out of rock. This concept of Strength goes for density rather than height. Even in official D&D, the dwarf situation is something like that, if perhaps not so literally a rock. A dwarf character with a high Strength meets the minimum requirement to be Large, but the player chooses to remain Medium. The dwarf goes for density and broadness, rather than height, and still gains all of the advantages of high Strength, except for reach, but the dwarf can use a heavy reach weapon that does extend reach. Where the dwarf is strong is fine with me. In the Norse view, the dvergar is paradigmatically strong. Like a rock, the dvergar can hold up and support an almost unlimited weight. Things that hold things up, like the buckle that holds the dress up to the shoulder strap, and the rocks that form the "four pillars" that hold up the sky, are all "dvergar". The dwarf is almost unlimitedly strong, especially when it comes to carrying capacity, whence the Weighttraining skill.

Minimum Score: Possible Size
Strength 25: Gargantuan
Strength 21: Huge
Strength 17: Large
Strength 13: Heavyweight (Medium)
Strength 9: Lightweight (Medium)
Strength 5: Small
Strength 1: Tiny

Note, since record keeping, humans have not quite reached 10 feet, but men and women have reached quite close. For a humanoid biped, these human heights are easily Large.



Where Strength correlates with toughness, size, and Weightlifting, Dexterity becomes stronger in the sense of being able to lift and maneuver ones own weight. Dexterity now handles ALL Athletic-Acrobatic skill checks. Acrobatics merges into Athletics. Any body stunt is a Dexterity (Athletics) check, including running, jumping, falling, climbing, balancing, tumbling, and so on. In this sense, Dexterity means body dexterity, thus athletic, in the sense of gymnastic and swashbuckling. To "climb up a rope" and "swing from a chandelier" are both Dexterity (Athletics) checks. Dexterity is one-stop-shopping for all swashbuckling needs. A player who wants gymnastic physical stunts, invests in Dexterity to do it all.

The trope of big and clumsy, means high Strength and low Dexterity. Brutes are not necessarily agile − some lumber. If a Large creature is unusually agile, it means both high Strength and high Dexterity.

I am so tempted to give manual dexterity − aiming a bow, painting a hyperrealistic picture, knitting a sweater − to Intelligence. But for the sake of familiar D&D-isms, Dexterity is both body dexterity as well as manual dexterity. Heh, the upshot is, characters who are highly gymnastic tend to also knit really nice shirts. On the other hand, many D&D-ism now start making much more sense. For example, Dexterity in the sense of dodge and reflex, where a character apparently makes a sudden high jump to leap up out of the way, now sensibly relate to the Dexterity (Athletics) checks. For reflex to make sense, is worth bringing in knitting. Likewise, any hesitancy about "finesse" weapons are gone. Dexterity means athleticism and body coordination. So, "Dexterity" means both body dexterity (athletic prowess) and manual dexterity (fine motor skills). This is natural English, and is probably what most D&D players have in mind anyway − despite the previous mechanics.



So, we only need four ability scores. Thematically, they work quite well.

• Strength (including fortitude and size)
• Dexterity (including Athletics and climbing)
• Intelligence (including Perception and intuition)
• Charisma (including Willpower and empathy)
 
Last edited:

• Strength
• Dexterity
• Intelligence
• Charisma

Earlier, I mentioned dropping Constitution from the abilities because it is too passive. In this approach, it merges into Strength. Here the Strength-Constitution merger, emphasizes the aspect of "size". So a Strength score of 17 or higher is Large, or is at least the requirement for a character to be Large. In other words, this Strength merger is more like what some other systems call "Might". Big and tough.

Keep in mind, being Large turns out (accidentally) to balance in 5e. The limitation of only one reaction per round, means only one opportunity attack per round. Thus, reach can be nice, but doesnt matter too much because there is only one target per round. 5e can handle Large characters, well.

Hit points, size, Constitution, and Strength correlate strongly in D&D statistics. The divergences in this correlation can be understood as more like different skills that key off of Strength. Carrying capacity strongly correlates off of size. Thus Weighttraining is a skill that keys off of Strength, in the sense of size. Similarly, large "heavy" weapons also key off of Strength. Heavy armors to be effective also correlate with Strength. Big and tough is a trope, and Strength continues to handle both fortitude and hit points, as well as size, reach, access to heavy gear, and heavy damage dealing. In relation to the Weighttraining skill, Strength contests such as bend bars and lift gates, things that relate to "brute force", are Strength (Weighttraining) checks. Because the need for "endurance training" is too passive, and seldom happens during a D&D game, the Weighttraining skill also handles any endurance training checks that happen every now and then. So, swimming in a stormy sea might call for a Strength (Weighttraining) check in the sense of fortitude and resisting any undertow of waves.

Strength becomes highly appealing ability, considering the heavier damage, the application of brute force to overcome obstacles, the higher hit points, the fortitude, and the flavor of being big and tough can be fun.

Strength correlates with size. Here, the dwarf concept now tends toward a high Strength concept in the sense toughness, but not size in the sense of tallness. In my setting, it is because the dwarf is actually made out of rock. This concept of Strength goes for density rather than height. Even in official D&D, the dwarf situation is something like that, if perhaps not so literally a rock. A dwarf character with a high Strength meets the minimum requirement to be Large, but the player chooses to remain Medium. The dwarf goes for density and broadness, rather than height, and still gains all of the advantages of high Strength, except for reach, but the dwarf can use a heavy reach weapon that does extend reach. Where the dwarf is strong is fine with me. In the Norse view, the dvergar is paradigmatically strong. Like a rock, the dvergar can hold up and support an almost unlimited weight. Things that hold things up, like the buckle that holds the dress up to the shoulder strap, and the rocks that form the "four pillars" that hold up the sky, are all "dvergar". The dwarf is almost unlimitedly strong, especially when it comes to carrying capacity, whence the Weighttraining skill.

Minimum Score: Possible Size
Strength 25: Gargantuan
Strength 21: Huge
Strength 17: Large
Strength 13: Heavyweight (Medium)
Strength 9: Lightweight (Medium)
Strength 5: Small
Strength 1: Tiny

Note, since record keeping, humans have not quite reached 10 feet, but men and women have reached quite close. For a humanoid biped, these human heights are easily Large.



Where Strength correlates with toughness, size, and Weightlifting, Dexterity becomes stronger in the sense of being able to lift and maneuver ones own weight. Dexterity now handles ALL Athletic-Acrobatic skill checks. Acrobatics merges into Athletics. Any body stunt is a Dexterity (Athletics) check, including running, jumping, falling, climbing, balancing, tumbling, and so on. In this sense, Dexterity means body dexterity, thus athletic, in the sense of gymnastic and swashbuckling. To "climb up a rope" and "swing from a chandelier" are both Dexterity (Athletics) checks. Dexterity is one-stop-shopping for all swashbuckling needs. A player who wants gymnastic physical stunts, invests in Dexterity to do it all.

The trope of big and clumsy, means high Strength and low Athletics. Brutes are not necessarily agile. If a Large creature is unusually agile, it means both high Strength and high Dexterity.

I am so tempted to give manual dexterity − aiming a bow, painting a hyperrealistic picture, knitting a sweater − to Intelligence. But for the sake of familiar D&D-isms, Dexterity is both body dexterity as well as manual dexterity. Heh, the upshot is, characters who are highly gymnastic tend to also knit really nice shirts. On the other hand, many D&D-ism now start making much more sense. For example, Dexterity in the sense of dodge and reflex, where a character apparently makes sudden high jumps to leap up out of the way, now sensibly relate to the Dexterity (Athletics) checks. For reflex to make sense, is worth bringing in knitting. Likewise, any hesitancy about "finesse" weapons are gone. Dexterity means athleticism and body coordination. So, "Dexterity" means both body dexterity (athletic prowess) and manual dexterity (fine motor skills). This is natural English, and is probably what most D&D players have in mind anyway − despite the previous mechanics.



So, we only need four ability scores. Thematically, they work quite well.

• Strength (including fortitude and size)
• Dexterity (including Athletics)
• Intelligence (including Perception)
• Charisma (including Willpower)
I like you thinking and have considered something similar as well. If I was designing things from scratch, I would probably go with four or five stats. This however is one of those things that will never be changed in official D&D.
 

le Redoutable

Ich bin El Glouglou :)
I would really not want to go into real racist tropes. But for example Asians are often labelled as intelligent, studious, disciplined and that sort of things. This is still not received well. Associating Africans with athleticism is another example.

Chinese use Chi ( which is like Cosmic Awareness, apparently )
Samuraïs use Ki ( from Budo )
 

Remove ads

Top