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

[Malmuria]

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.

In older editions ability scores were also less of an emphasis overall, whereas in 5e they are the general base mechanic for almost everything (that plus level and proficiency mod). So in that sense 5e actually exacerbates the problem of racial ability score differences because the ability scores are that much more important (same thing with the MM, where in 5e you need ability scores and derived stats for all entries)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Plenty of games use freeform descriptors with no specific mechanical backing to do a lot of heavy lifting of mechanical differentiation. Even with no specific mechanics attached, race/heritage still carry a lot of trope and aesthetic weight. An elf is still going to be described differently in play than a halfling, even if "elf" and "halfling" are only words written on the top of your character sheet.

D&D is not a freeform descriptor game. There are, as you say, plenty of games that are. Why does every game have to follow the same mechanical (or lack thereof) philosophy? You already have your cake.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

If I don't, I won't be hitting on-curve.

There's no on-curve. The math in D&D is not that tight. The math of monsters is all over the place. Your elf barbarian will be just as fun.

This means I can take a feat at 4th level

You can also take the feat with your elf, once again, being having a +3 instead of a +2 or vice-versa does very little in the whole experience of playing D&D.

 

[abirdcall]

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.)

It is interesting that you suggest playing without feats as a solution to not having an 'interesting' character sue to lack of feats.

In a game I just started I told a new player to 5e that we use feats but not GWM or SS. He was concerned that he wouldn't be able to play his concept of an archer. I told him we can just play without any feats if it makes him feel better.

We are playing the game now and he feels like an awesome archer even without the feat.

The extra +1 is not really necessary in actual play. I get that conceptually the character doesn't look exceptional on paper for the class but they get to be unique and bring different abilities to the table which should be worth something.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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 really think some people want race to be a purely cosmetic distinction, with no meaningful difference beyond what the player and DM invent. What's worse, they want everyone else to play this way too.

 

[abirdcall]

In older editions ability scores were also less of an emphasis overall, whereas in 5e they are the general base mechanic for almost everything (that plus level and proficiency mod). So in that sense 5e actually exacerbates the problem of racial ability score differences because the ability scores are that much more important (same thing with the MM, where in 5e you need ability scores and derived stats for all entries)

I would argue that special abilities are the most important if we are talking about what a character can do in the game.

Also the way the math is all characters can attempt and contribute to tasks regardless of ability scores.

 

[Undrave]

"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."

Bingo! Taking a Feat at 4th is way more fun!

 

[Backcountry164]

Race is just flavor now. Take custom lineage and flavor it with any race you want. In the attempt to create more options they've just narrowed the list of viable ones. Which is fine but let's call it what it is...

 

[Malmuria]

I really think some people want race to be a purely cosmetic distinction, with no meaningful difference beyond what the player and DM invent. What's worse, they want everyone else to play this way too.

"what the player and dm invent" is called world building and is a much much greater source of distinction making than "+2 dex" (which amounts to a 5% increase on associated d20 rolls). Honestly, even a feature like elven trance does much more work in making elves distinctive at the table compared to an ability score modifier ("my character is an elf, which means she is naturally graceful!" rolls a 7...)

 

[Vael]

Honestly ... I'm starting to think Race/Lineage shouldn't even give ability boosts, it should be Class or Background.