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

[the Jester]

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?

How about "Asian girls are hot"?

Exoticizing people can be a form of racism, even when it's to attribute (ostensibly) positive traits to them.

 

[Malmuria]

If the goal of the sport of boxing (f'rex) is to pummel your opponent more and harder than your opponent pummels you, then when you take away the entirely artificial restriction of weight classes, it's pretty apparent that bigger and more massive boxers have a significant edge. If we measure "better" or "worse" at a sport as being more able to attain the sport's goal(s), well.

I like the idea of strength as being "pound for pound." Alternatively, CoC has a size stat that tries to take some of this in consideration.

But I guess a question would be, if a player at your table wants to play a str-based gnome battle master fighter, does that break your immersion somehow? Maybe they won't get an extra bonus to their strength at character creation, but per the rules they'll still be able to do all the fighter-y things, including pushing an enemy back.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

It depends on the goal.

If the goal is that the system should model the real world, and be an accurate depiction of strength, constitution and ect where biology matters to your core statistical values such as how much you can lift... then yes, no "race" should ever get a bonus because they are so close to the human average as to be indistinguishable.

If the goal is to make the numbers only for the purposes of game mechanics, to allow for hitting targets and damage to those targets then I have to ask why would we want them tied to race? Why encode it into the game that "the best" at a certain job is always going to be someone of a certain race/species? "Well if you want a highly intelligent accountant, you always hire a gnome" isn't something that we should encourage.

However, the game was designed to include that +2/+1 or some variation of it, in the math of the system. It needs to be accounted for, so floating ASIs seem like the best solution. Other good solutions include increasing the point buy or changing the standard array.

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.

I was aware that there have been changes in the modern era due to increasing limits and training. But let me phrase this question pointedly.

Do you think that the only reason Ms Sandwina was stronger than the strongest man of her era was because he was too weak to be a real strongman?



I admit, looking at that difference, it seems insurmountable, 168 kg is a lot. But the difference between the men and the men in your numbers is 228 kg... so I wonder if I should say it is impossible.

 

[the Jester]

That said, I did like when the playtest offered some stat bonus from class choices and thought it was a worthwhile design decision.

Yeah- while I am a huge fan of set racial ASIs, I also really liked that in the playtest. You want your training? There you go. I want my inherent differences? There I go.

 

[the Jester]

Because the ancestral ability adjustments are just smoke and mirrors. Because of the layered way you pick ability bonuses and the number of floating bonuses you get, it’s possible to put 18 in your class’s primary stat, a 14 in your class’s two secondary stats, and a 12 in any other stat of your choice, regardless of which ancestry and class you pick.

Honestly, that sounds really boring. I know it's to a lot of peoples' tastes, but to me, having a character with perfect stats is just... ugh. I really prefer rolling in order, though I don't force that on my players- I just do it for all my characters (assuming a game with rolled stats). For me, concept follows stats instead of the other way around.

But I am absolutely not claiming my preference is right, or better than someone else's; it's just a matter of playstyle.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

I'm a fan of racial ability score adjustments, but I believe race should be a driving force behind your character's abilities. I firmly believe an elf should feel completely different from a dwarf, but I'd be happy to ditch ability score adjustments to make this happen. Ultimately, +2 here or there doesn't differentiate characters, not really. Chances are, nobody notices that +1 in play except in rare circumstances, and even then the +1 typically makes the biggest difference over a long period of play.

I'd like to see dramatic, game-changing abilities tied to race. Elves all get spells, dwarven flesh is hard as stone, halflings are invisible when they're not moving, things of that nature.

 

[billd91]

I like the idea of strength as being "pound for pound." Alternatively, CoC has a size stat that tries to take some of this in consideration.

Yes, it's a pretty cool refinement. Villains and Vigilantes went pretty far on that line too because carrying capacity and hand-to-hand combat damage was based heavily on both strength and weight. So those characters with growth powers hit pretty hard.

But I guess a question would be, if a player at your table wants to play a str-based gnome battle master fighter, does that break your immersion somehow? Maybe they won't get an extra bonus to their strength at character creation, but per the rules they'll still be able to do all the fighter-y things, including pushing an enemy back.

It doesn't break my immersion - but I also don't see a problem with different characters having different paths and costs to get to the same results because of the choices they're making. As I see it, there probably should be a difference in how a goliath would do in that role compared to a gnome. And a net +1 to strength-based checks and save DCs because of the goliath's +2 to strength is noticeable without being overwhelming.

 

[Charlaquin]

Honestly, that sounds really boring. I know it's to a lot of peoples' tastes, but to me, having a character with perfect stats is just... ugh. I really prefer rolling in order, though I don't force that on my players- I just do it for all my characters (assuming a game with rolled stats). For me, concept follows stats instead of the other way around.

But I am absolutely not claiming my preference is right, or better than someone else's; it's just a matter of playstyle.

I also very much enjoy rolling stats and making a character to suit them, rather than making stats to suit the character I already decided I want to play. And PF2 does also offer the option to roll stats for groups who want to play that way. But I don’t think it’s the way most people prefer to engage with the game these days, and I think it’s important to tailor the game to the way people want to use it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm a fan of racial ability score adjustments, but I believe race should be a driving force behind your character's abilities. I firmly believe an elf should feel completely different from a dwarf, but I'd be happy to ditch ability score adjustments to make this happen. Ultimately, +2 here or there doesn't differentiate characters, not really. Chances are, nobody notices that +1 in play except in rare circumstances, and even then the +1 typically makes the biggest difference over a long period of play.

I'd like to see dramatic, game-changing abilities tied to race. Elves all get spells, dwarven flesh is hard as stone, halflings are invisible when they're not moving, things of that nature.

Yeah, something like that certainly might be interesting. The real issue with removing racial ASIs mid-edition is that the game was really not originally designed to work that way. Without them, the races have very little mechanical weight left, and it also creates weird issues like mountain dwarves suddenly being the best choice for wizards and sorcerers.

 

[the Jester]

Certain things are definitional to D&D, and the six ability scores are high on that list. Players are deeply attached to them. 4E was an object lesson in the dangers of changing such things, and even 4E didn't venture to touch the Sacred Six.

You can argue till you're blue in the face, marshaling all the logic and design sense in the world, that the game would work better with only four stats. You may be right! I believe the game would work better with none at all. But Wizards is never going to change the lineup. Hell, I wouldn't if I were in charge of D&D--the benefits do not justify the risk.

I do think it might be possible to push D&D back toward the 2E model. In 2E, the secondary bonuses from ability scores (attack and damage bonuses, hit point bonuses, etc.) were much smaller than in 3E and later. However, when you used a nonweapon proficiency (the 2E equivalent of a skill check), you added the whole score to the d20 roll*, so there was a really noticeable difference.

I'd like to see 6E move in that direction. It probably won't, though.

*Well, sort of. You rolled 1d20 and tried to roll less than or equal to your ability score. However, nobody wants to go back to that kind of system; the "higher always better" equivalent is d20 + ability score vs DC 21.

Yeah, the six ability scores will remain as is, I think, at least for decades to come.

On reigning in ability modifiers- yeah, that was one of the first things I did when I last did some design on my own version of D&D. That was a big part of my approach to flattening the math (what 5e later called "bounded accuracy").

Regarding ability checks in 2e, they worked differently at various points in the edition, and one of my favorite approaches was "Roll ability score or under to succeed, but higher is better". This meant that you might require a certain DC to succeed at a task- e.g. rolling this boulder away requires a DC 14 Str check- which meant that you needed a minimum Str of 14 to succeed at it. I can't remember which book this was in- maybe Creative Campaigning or something?