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

[Malmuria]

You are making sense! And this is very much true. I'm going through Robert E. Howards books right now, and the use of certain words coupled with a whole timeline and theory about how certain cultures evolved from and back into apes, on a map that's meant to be old earth, is very unsettling.


But let me ask, how is science-fiction really better at this? Isn't it almost a staple of science-fiction of having alien species have hugely different capacities from us? Being way more intelligent and advanced in technology? Being physical strong or frail, forcing us to adapt in case of conflict? Communicating in ways beyond or comprehension? Not being able to breath air with oxygen?

My guess (and it really is a guess) as to why that doesn't feel icky is because its absolutely clear that this is a different species. They come from a different planet. And you know what, if real aliens showed up tomorrow, I'm willing to bet a good sum that some ideologists would absolutely turn their presence as some justification to be racist and divide people.

Just like the observation of different species like gorillas, chimpanzees, and non-primates was used in the worst way possible to fuel racial theories.

Well Sci Fi is a huge genre obviously, so it depends. However, a fair amount of sci fi is more critical of its world building implications. You can have dystopia in sci fi, and in a way that critiques real world dynamics. Whereas when you translate this to fantasy, you get something like a grimdark aesthetic, one that is often, imo, unintentionally and unwittingly very campy (basically, edgelord, the setting. See: Lamentations of the Flame Princess. On the other hand, a game like Mork Borg leans into the camp to produce something that is both very dark but also very funny).

5e has the problem of being fairly whimsical and non serious in its tone and artwork, but then all of a sudden mentioning that your drow or tiefling character should face hatred and discrimination. In games I've been in there's been at most a very light gesture toward that kind of racism that we don't follow through on because it doesn't fit well with the 5e tone overall. Whereas I think in a different genre (Sci Fi for example), and with the right group of people, a rpg can really explore anything from those kind of social dynamics to full dystopia in an interesting and non-problematic way

 

[Burnside]

I hope we can now focus on the real enemy, the Twilight Cleric.

 

[billd91]

I get that some people feel that way. I do. But honestly, if not having an extra +2 to your main stat is going to ruin your fun, your playstyle is so far removed from mine, and from the style of my game, that we might as well be playing different systems.

I prefer ability modifiers for a race as they were in earlier editions: Bonuses and penalties both to illustrate how the race, on average, differs from humanity. +2 Dex, -2 Con? Yeah, that race is, on average, faster, more agile, and less doughty than a human. That means something. Floating ability score boni means... nothing. It means nothing in the game world. It only means something to a player- and the value of "I can have an extra +1 to my Dex bonus!" is far less than "this indicates a lot about my race's actual nature and how it differs from the baseline of humanity" in my view.

You really want that extra 2 points of Dex? Wait until level 4 and bump it. Or play the race that gives it to you. But if you want to be a goliath in my game, I expect that your character will have the traits and qualities of a goliath to some extent. You'll be big and strong. You won't get some kind of elvish accuracy type racial feature, because you get goliath style Powerful Build and the like instead. You don't get to custom build a race in my campaign, period. There are choices to be made. This isn't GURPS. I don't want to play a game where every meaningful choice is "How best can I exploit my bank of points?", and I absolutely don't want to run it.

I'm largely of the same opinion and find the issue of needing the bonuses to play class/race combos alien to my way of playing - they help, sure, but they aren't necessary. Fortunately, what Tasha's has done is not declare the transferrable bonuses right and leaning into the racially archetypes wrong. They are both right in the sense that they support different tables' preferences for play.

 

[Malmuria]

But let me ask, how is science-fiction really better at this? Isn't it almost a staple of science-fiction of having alien species have hugely different capacities from us? Being way more intelligent and advanced in technology? Being physical strong or frail, forcing us to adapt in case of conflict? Communicating in ways beyond or comprehension? Not being able to breath air with oxygen?

For example, I recently re-read war of the worlds. One of the main premising questions of that text is, 'what exactly do you think colonization feels like for people experiencing it, my fellow Britons?'

 

[mrpopstar]

So long as customizing your origin remains character-specific, I'm not particularly motivated to argue for or against it.

My only reservation is that forwarding the argument that prescribed ability score increases are steeped in real-world racial stereotypes trickles down to the stat blocks in the Monster Manual.

If the increases are racist here then they're racist there, which places the onus on Dungeon Masters to roll monster stats when preparing encounters.

 

[Undrave]

I prefer ability modifiers for a race as they were in earlier editions: Bonuses and penalties both to illustrate how the race, on average, differs from humanity. +2 Dex, -2 Con? Yeah, that race is, on average, faster, more agile, and less doughty than a human.

Yeah... we don't do that anymore because then you get to a -INT race and things get dicy.

All that does is make it even LESS likely to see people 'play against type' because the mechanics get in the way and you'll see Min-Max'd character who don't mind the -2 for that juicy +2 and we already have enough character dumping INT or CHA...

But let me ask, how is science-fiction really better at this? Isn't it almost a staple of science-fiction of having alien species have hugely different capacities from us? Being way more intelligent and advanced in technology? Being physical strong or frail, forcing us to adapt in case of conflict? Communicating in ways beyond or comprehension? Not being able to breath air with oxygen?

I think it's because science fiction is more aware of what it means and it usually wield them as a tool. In Sci-Fi, other species hold up a mirror back to humanity.

 

[abirdcall]

People are starting to use the term species to describe different creatures, but I'm not sure that's fully worked out. Do all humanoids share a common ancestor? Is humanoid the genus? Are they able to all have offspring with each other, and can those offspring also have children? What % of their dna is common? These strike me as more questions for Sci Fi worldbuilding.

Whereas in fantasy usually the different creatures have some kind of magical origin and are fairly static in terms of any 'evolutionary' development. Given that their origins are basically just-so stories, some amount of archetypal characterization should be expected. The problem comes when your fantasy world produces (intentionally or not) and describes creatures in ways that are not only essentialist in-fiction, but take up vocabulary and figurations from harmful real-world stereotypes. For ASI I think saying that some beings are inherently more smart, for example, mimics real-world prejudice in ways that some people find uncomfortable.

On intelligence the problem are the real world judgments we have on people where we assign different levels of intelligence. IQ for example is hogwash.

In D&D intelligence, in effect, mostly means ability to memorize things.

If we are changing how we see races I think we might be due to change how we name and see the ability scores.

I also don't like the idea of more intelligent races but I am happy to have one that has an amazing memory.

 

[Malmuria]

So long as customizing your origin remains character-specific, I'm not particularly motivated to argue for or against it.

My only reservation is that forwarding the argument that prescribed ability score increases are steeped in real-world racial stereotypes trickles down to the stat blocks in the Monster Manual.

If the increases are racist here then they're racist there, which places the onus on Dungeon Masters to roll monster stats when preparing encounters.

I'm fine with the MM simplifying in-fiction variety for the sake of gameable material (I think bits of the lore sections of the MM are actually what's more problematic). Same thing when it comes to player options: I'm all for b/x race-as-class when it's presented as the options available to the players and not indicative of the whole breadth of variety in the gameworld. It really helps to simplify options for players. Racial ASI in 5e fall in a middle ground where they don't really work to reinforce archetype (imo) nor do they make character creation more streamlined or easy to understand (and probably make it more difficult, insofar as players feel the need to 'match' their race selection with their class selection). This is exacerbated by the fact that, unlike in earlier editions, in wotc editions ASIs come as you level up and are a regular part of class progression. By 8th level, you've gotten more ASI from your class than from your race. To be honest, I don't really see the point of ASI at character creation at all, and if you are going to have it, either float them (as in Tasha's) or better yet tie them to class from the beginning

 

[jmartkdr2]

If we're talking 5E, how are elves terrible at strength?

The logic goes something like this:

"If I play an elf barbarian, I start with a +2 strength mod, which is fine. But I need to put my 4th-level ASI into strength to keep up, and my 8th-level ASI, and 12th. If I don't, I won't be hitting on-curve. (A more detailed analysis would agree up to 12th - you don't need a +5 until 16th to stay at a 65% hit rate.)

If I play a half-orc barbarian, I can start with a +3 strength mod. This means I can take a feat at 4th level, which makes for a more interesting character with distinctive abilities."

The difference is feats - and when you see that, you quickly see all the possible work-arounds, like free feats, magic items that catch up your attack rolls, more interesting racial features, not playing with feats, or playing classes/builds that don't really need feats (like all full casters, sword-and-board warriors, monks, and rogues.)

 

[abirdcall]

I'm fine with the MM simplifying in-fiction variety for the sake of gameable material (I think bits of the lore sections of the MM are actually what's more problematic). Same thing when it comes to player options: I'm all for b/x race-as-class when it's presented as the options available to the players and not indicative of the whole breadth of variety in the gameworld. It really helps to simplify options for players. Racial ASI in 5e fall in a middle ground where they don't really work to reinforce archetype (imo) nor do they make character creation more streamlined or easy to understand (and probably make it more difficult, insofar as players feel the need to 'match' their race selection with their class selection). This is exacerbated by the fact that, unlike in earlier editions, in wotc editions ASIs come as you level up and are a regular part of class progression. By 8th level, you've gotten more ASI from your class than from your race. To be honest, I don't really see the point of ASI at character creation at all, and if you are going to have it, either float them (as in Tasha's) or better yet tie them to class from the beginning

I would rather they weren't in the game and we had more abilities for the races instead.

But unfortunately that is now how they were designed.

What makes a Mountain Dwarf different than a human without set ASIs? Not much other than being mostly wizards.