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

[Chaosmancer]

What's this winter eladrin thing?

Someone brought up the Winter Eladrin monster statblock as having a 10 dex (+0)

I mentioned that the Winter Eladrin bother me, because they are so so much weaker than all of the other Eladrin, by a lot.

For example, Summer and Spring get two attacks, at +8 to hit, for 3d8+4 and 2d8+2 respectively. Even the Autumn which is a healer gets one attack at +5 for 2d8+1

Winter gets one attack at+4 for 1d8... that's it. No mod.


I was given a squad of various eladrin (I think it was three of each) for a massive battle in a game once, and the difference in power was massive between even the weaker Spring and Autumn and the Winter Eladrin. And it has always bothered me.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm sorry, but the Winter Court of Faerie makes this a bit nonsensical. There are just as many fey-beings in literature associated with autumn and winter as there are summer and spring.

Summer and Spring are just the more famous ones.

People need to read the Dresden Files!

 

[ad_hoc]

Can you elaborate on (the bold part of) this comment? I don't understand what you mean.

There aren't a lot of barbarian elves because they don't get a bonus to strength. So playing one is out of the norm and memorable.

With floating ASIs it is no longer out the norm. It isn't against type.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If you want Tolkien elves, play Middle Earth. D&D elves have never been Tolkien elves and 5e has no obligation to give them to you. Tolkien elves can't be made by a floating ASI by the way. They have VERY different abilities than D&D elves and subraces.

Which of those were Tolkien elves? I didn't describe a single immortal celestial being overcome with Ennui.

But, I did describe like four different types of DnD elves.

Then I'll repeat it to you one last time. I've never once said +2 dex defines elves. I said it is an important piece to elves. If you have only +2 dex, you don't have ANY race. A stat bonus cannot achieve what is necessary. If you have only the racial abilities minus the +2 dex you do have elves. You just have incomplete elves.

As an analogy, if you have the elven abilities but no dex bonus, you have the Mona Lisa but with a big white hole where her face should be. It's still recognizable as the Mona Lisa, but it's very incomplete. If you have +2 dex and no abilities, it's like just having her face and nothing else. You might recognize it as a piece of the Mona Lisa, but it won't be the Mona Lisa.

So my Elven wizard who sings more beautifully than a bird, with a +2 INT and +1 Cha isn't an elf because I decided not to make him particularly graceful?

That's what you are missing Max. For you elves need to have a +2 Dex, they all have to be graceful. For a lot of us? Elves being graceful is only one of four or five different things they could be. It isn't any more important than their wisdom, their intelligence, their charisma or even their strength. Plenty of sources for elves have them stronger than humans. I don't see elves who don't have a +2 Dex as being "incomplete" because a +2 Cha and a+1 Wis or Int is just as much an "elf" as a +2 Dex is.

And, other than just repeating "elves are graceful" do you have an argument for why dexterity should be more important than any other stat for defining an elf?

No, that is NOT what I said. I said that taking something away is a change that people dislike and resist, so taking away a floating bonus is harder than adding in a floating bonus. Giving something extra is a change that people do like, making it easier.

I don't know Max, seems like adding a floating bonus that anyone could put anywhere they like is being met with a pretty large amount of resistance and people leaving the game.

Though, I will agree, it would be even harder to take a floating bonus and harden it to take it away, since there isn't really a good answer to why you couldn't just... use the floating bonus to give yourself the same stats as the hardened version.

The feat is a learned ability. It may or may not get a bonus. This is completely different than inherent traits, and is also something any elf can get.

As a racial stat bonus humans can only achieve +1.

Not aware of elves who can get a feat by level 1, but okay, you don't like the version with feats and don't want that to count.

How about the Mark of Finding Human (+2 Wisdom, +1 Con), the Mark of Handling Human (+2 Wisdom, +1 float), the Mark of Making Human (+2 Intelligence, +1 float), The Mark of Passage Human (+2 Dexterity, +1 Float), and the The Mark of Sentinel Human (+2 Constitution, +1 Wisdom)

Why do these official human options with their +2's not count? Because, I know you are going to say they don't, just curious what reasoning it will be. I hope it isn't "that's Eberron" because the elves and Dwarves and Halflings and Dragonborn (ect ect ect) of Eberron are still using the PHB stats.

Yes they do. WotC screw-ups due to their slavish devotion to balance don't change the fact that Loxodons SHOULD get a strength bonus for their size and strength. If they weren't going to portray Loxodons correctly, they never should have made the race.

Who says they didn't portray them correctly? Magic the Gathering has them as priests and wise leaders, and have them as fairly tough. +2 Wisdom, +1 Con... that seems exactly like what you would expect. They are portrayed very well by all accounts. They just don't match your prejudices.

And Dwarves get that +2 Strength, but no Powerful Build feature like Goliaths, so why does +2 mean you should get Powerful Build in one case and not the other?

That 100 pounds of extra weight matters. There's a reason why you don't see 100 pound lighty flyweights fighting 200 pound cruiserweights. They'd have no chance due to the strength difference.



Size is more than height. Dwarves are the same size as humans. Both are medium and in the same weight ranges.

So... 100 lbs matters, that's why it doesn't matter between a mountain dwarf and goliath who get the same strength bonus?

And hill dwarves are only 15 lbs lighter, does a 115 lbs flyweight utterly dominate and destroy a 100 lbs flyweight? Because hill dwarves get a +0 strength, while mountain dwarves get that +2. And Goliaths with their effective +1 over humans due to 100 lbs of weight should leave the human utterly no chance due to the strength difference, so mountain dwarves with double that over hill dwarves should be even more effective.


But, somehow, I think that 15 lbs isn't considered a massive weight advantage like that. And Goliaths being two feet taller and 100 lbs heavier should be stronger than Mountain dwarves, but they aren't.

Dude. The difference between 150 pounds(hill dwarf) and 165 pounds(mountain dwarf) is not close to the difference between humans(165 pounds) and goliaths(277 pounds). 15 pounds is not close to 112 pounds.=

Right. And yet, here is the break down

Hill Dwarf 4'1", 150 lbs +0 strength
Mountain dwarf 4'5", 165 lbs, +2 strength
Human 5'8", 165 lbs, +1 strength
Goliath 6'1", 277 lbs, +2 strength

A difference of 4 inches and 15 lbs is a difference of +2, but a difference of nearly two feet and 112 lbs is a difference of +0.

Meanwhile, a difference of 5 inches and 112 lbs is +1.

Height and Mass in the real-world may indicate strength, but clearly it doesn't in the DnD world. I mean, would it help to expand this list to really drive that point home?


Gnome 3'4", 40lbs, +0 strength
Duergar 4'0", 114 lbs, +1 strength
Hill Dwarf 4'1", 150 lbs +0 strength
Mountain dwarf 4'5", 165 lbs, +2 strength
Elf 5'5", 133 lbs, +0 Strength
Zariel Tielfing 5'6", 155 lbs, +1 strength
Human 5'8", 165 lbs, +1 strength
Githyanki 6'1", 165 lbs +2 strength
Goliath 6'1", 277 lbs, +2 strength

These numbers are all over the place. 110 lbs advantage is either a +0, a +1 or a +2 depending on which 110 lbs advantage you are talking about.

Yes it really way. She was trying to get me with a "trap" question that ignored what I clearly said multiple times.

Having many agile races doesn't in any way invalidate anything that I've said. Your whataboutism is getting annoying. How about we discuss elves?

I did discuss elves. But I find this confusing.

Letting a dwarf get a +2 dex takes away from the elven identity, because elves get a +2 dex, but goblins and kenku don't? Or is a +2 dex bad because it takes away from a dwarven identity somehow instead of the elves?

 

[Bill Zebub]

There aren't a lot of barbarian elves because they don't get a bonus to strength. So playing one is out of the norm and memorable.

With floating ASIs it is no longer out the norm. It isn't against type.

Ah, I see. I guess that's another example of whether or not one extrapolates the PC rules out to say something about the population at large. Even if floating ASIs were the default rule, and more players chose to play elven barbarians, I wouldn't conclude that elves as a group are more likely to be barbarians, and wouldn't populate my worlds with elven barbarians, and would ask the player of an elven barbarian to come up with a good background story.

Again, just a different approach.

(edit) however I will grant that choosing elven barbarian is less likely to be novel/original from the point of view of other players. It's no longer "against type" from a player perspective, even if it would surprising/unexpected/rare within the game world.

 

[Scott Christian]

Sure, go ahead, most people like the randomization element though.

I get the randomization part. I also understand (and like) the concept of playing with pieces when building a character; the mix and match is fun for a lot of people.
But the argument for more control over ASIs has always been: "I want to make the character that I envision. I shouldn't be punished (not getting an extra +1) for being a (fill in the blank). So, why not negate all of it and just let the players choose their attributes? I mean, wouldn't that actually be the epitome of "creating the character a player envisions?"
It would seem that if I wanted to make a very specific character, say something generic like Legolas, I can't do it unless I get to choose the attributes.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The designers are aggressive about removing features that are overpowered. But they seem comfortable with things that are underpowered.

So, I am unsure if the low Dex is on purpose or not.

I honestly can't believe it is, it makes them far far far too weak for a CR 10 monster.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I get the randomization part. I also understand (and like) the concept of playing with pieces when building a character; the mix and match is fun for a lot of people.
But the argument for more control over ASIs has always been: "I want to make the character that I envision. I shouldn't be punished (not getting an extra +1) for being a (fill in the blank). So, why not negate all of it and just let the players choose their attributes? I mean, wouldn't that actually be the epitome of "creating the character a player envisions?"
It would seem that if I wanted to make a very specific character, say something generic like Legolas, I can't do it unless I get to choose the attributes.

Sure, and there are people who play that way.

 

[Scott Christian]

Before just picking stats, there would need to be some expectations set and agreement from the players on them.

That is my question - why would you need to set expectations? Why?

You have a group of players. One wants to be a young 16 year old girl that is wicked smart and crazy dexterous. They put a 20 in those two things. You have another that envisions gimili, so they stack strength, con, some dex, a bit of wisdom and a mild charisma. And you have another player that wants to be One-Punch man from the cartoon. They stack strength, dex, con and charisma.

Isn't this creating their vision of their character? Isn't it just as easy to have the DM adjust encounters than to limit the player and force them to build something they don't want?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I get the randomization part. I also understand (and like) the concept of playing with pieces when building a character; the mix and match is fun for a lot of people.
But the argument for more control over ASIs has always been: "I want to make the character that I envision. I shouldn't be punished (not getting an extra +1) for being a (fill in the blank). So, why not negate all of it and just let the players choose their attributes? I mean, wouldn't that actually be the epitome of "creating the character a player envisions?"
It would seem that if I wanted to make a very specific character, say something generic like Legolas, I can't do it unless I get to choose the attributes.

I think you are conflating "what I want" in an absolute vs. a relative sense.

You are describing it here in an absolute sense: "I want to be smart and quick so I want 20's in both scores." (But, of course, one then has to question the 20 cap. Why not 30 in both scores?)

The floating ASI is about "what I want" in the relative sense: all the other players who chose traditional, archetypical race/class combinations get +3 in their prime attribute, why do I have to settle for +2 just because I wanted to play a half-orc wizard?