D&D 5E (2014) Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)

[Yaarel]

I still like them, but prefer a path halfway between, something like the half elf for every race with a +2 to a single stat and then a +2 (or two +1s) placed where you choose. The variable stat should also be able to be replaced with a feat, just like an ASI.

In the past, I took the view that the elf Dexterity was "too Tolkien" and "wrong" for certain kinds of elf concepts.

I was equally essentialist, I just had a different perspective about what the essence should be. For me, the essence of a mythologically-accurate elf archetype is absolutely, unambiguously, Charisma.

Along comes Tashas. This book says, pick whatever ability you want.

You know what? This freedom is a better game-design approach.

 

[le Redoutable]

reminds me of a topic :

each humanoid race has one Strong Stat and one Weak Stat
silly examples are
Dwarf : +Con, -Cha
Kobold: +Int, -Str
( there would be room for 30 races also )

 

[TheAlkaizer]

Now, it is done deal. We have Tashas. Every DM and every player can now officially swap abilities and proficiencies to suit ones own personal needs.

I agree. It's the best compromise. Tables could choose to allow swaps or not before Tasha's, they still can albeit a bit more officially now.

I realize, that this freedom allows me to make the characters concepts that I want, more exactly, more easily, and more pleasantly.

I must regretfully inform you that your character concepts will still be creatively limited. A frontline fighter will be terrible if he doesn't have Relentless Endurance, as will be a rogue if he doesn't have Lucky or a ranger if he only has 25ft of movement. Hopefully, next player options book should allow you to choose your movement speed, swap your race features and any proficiencies.

 

[le Redoutable]

hey: Speed is used in the Marvel Site for Characters !

they use six abilities : Durability , Energy, Fighting Skills, Intelligence, Speed, Strength ;

 

[Yaarel]

I agree. It's the best compromise. Tables could choose to allow swaps or not before Tasha's, they still can albeit a bit more officially now.

Yeah. Each setting will have its own features and tones, as well as each character.

The DMs I appreciate are the ones who hold off final decisions about a setting until they see what ideas the players are getting enthusiastic about for the characters.

All of this is session zero stuff.

I must regretfully inform you that your character concepts will still be creatively limited. Your frontline fighter will be terrible if he doesn't have Relentless Endurance, as will be your rogue if he doesn't have Lucky or your ranger if he only has 25ft of movement. Hopefully, next player options book should allow you to choose your movement speed, swap your race features and any proficiencies.

Heh. Sometimes a specific feat does matter.

But normally it depends on which tropes the DM and players are leaning into.

For example, I have several specific elf archetypes in mind that I love.
Norse tropes: Cha-Int, Bard, Druid, Psion
Scottish tropes: Cha-Str, Warlock, healer, faerie knight (Ancients Paladin)
D&D No-Dex elf tropes:
• 4e Cha Int eladrin
• 3e +Int −Con sun elf
• 1e +Int grey elf
• Wizard, 4e Int Swordmage, 5e Int Bladesinger

And so on with other races.

Once a player decides which tropes to emphasize, one can optimize mechanically from there. (Meaning optimize mechanics to reinforce flavor, not to "win the game")

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's time for me to eat some crow. I've been against separating ability score increases from race in D&D for some time now. My main opposition to removing it was because I felt as though it made choosing what race to play matter even less than it matters now.* But my character died tonight during the inaugural session for our new campaign and it's time to roll up a new character. After discussing it a bit with my group, I decided to make a the nephew of our half-elf druid and I will be a Circle of the Spores druid. One of my goals of this campaign is to play things I've never played before and that includes races. I mostly make humans so in the spirit of newness I decided to make an elf. Elves get that great Dexterity bonus but I wanted a Wisdom bonus, dammit! I had the option to use the Tasha rules but I just made a regular elf and took my +2 Dexterity bonus.

Two things-

1. If you were really old school, you wouldn't be against ASIs for races. You'd be against ASIs, period. "In my day, we got our abilities the old fashioned way; we EARNED THEM by rolling 'em. Not just handing 'em out like candy every few levels."

2. Never go full Elf. Just ask Sean Penn.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Whilst I get wanting the build flexibility that swapping ASIs bring and I also think that how 5e handles racial ASIs isn't very good to begin with, I still think the essentialism complaint is... well, weird.

These are different species. Wood elves are essentially better runners than most other species, aarakockra are essentially better flyers, drow essentially see better in the dark, merfolk are essentially better swimmers, dwarves are essentially better at resisting poisons and countless other similar things. In fact ASIs are far less essentialistic than any of these as they just give you a small bump, but you still get to represent individual variation via point buy or roll. Every wood elf is a faster runner than every dwarf, but even though half-orcs may be on average stronger than elves, some elves can still easily be stronger than some half-orcs.

 

[MGibster]

I find it less plausible that a culture would favor a weapon that requires Strength, when the members of the culture are terrible at Strength. Evolution, including cultural evolution, tends to favor the adaptive advantages of a trait.

That's just a left over artifact from the days before finesse allowed anyone to use Dexterity for to hit bonuses. Just being able to use a longsword even without the Strength bonus opened up some opportunities for the elf PC. It'd make more sense for them to favor the rapier these days.

If you were really old school, you wouldn't be against ASIs for races. You'd be against ASIs, period. "In my day, we got our abilities the old fashioned way; we EARNED THEM by rolling 'em. Not just handing 'em out like candy every few levels."

I think I'm old enough! I don't need to be any more out of touch.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

It's time for me to eat some crow. I've been against separating ability score increases from race in D&D for some time now. My main opposition to removing it was because I felt as though it made choosing what race to play matter even less than it matters now.* But my character died tonight during the inaugural session for our new campaign and it's time to roll up a new character. After discussing it a bit with my group, I decided to make a the nephew of our half-elf druid and I will be a Circle of the Spores druid. One of my goals of this campaign is to play things I've never played before and that includes races. I mostly make humans so in the spirit of newness I decided to make an elf. Elves get that great Dexterity bonus but I wanted a Wisdom bonus, dammit! I had the option to use the Tasha rules but I just made a regular elf and took my +2 Dexterity bonus.

But you know what? All those who argued that getting rid of ASI were right. It allows you to make the character you want to make and that's always a good thing. You win. I am a reformed man.

*I know some of you will tell me in your campaigns it makes a difference whether your character is an elf or dwarf. I believe you. But in my experience it usually doesn't matter much.

That +2 doesn't actually matter that much. +2 Dexterity is very useful, and picking a race just for that most optimal bonuses is incredibly lame.

 

[Umbran]

hey: Speed is used in the Marvel Site for Characters !

This is the D&D subforum, in a thread about 5e rules for character creation. Stats for a Marvel game aren't terribly relevant in this discussion. Let's try to keep it on-topic, please.