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

[Scott Christian]

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.

True story: I played a dex based barbarian wood elf. By sixth level I was running, I think like 150' or 160' feet a turn. I could run 110' a turn and still attack! Also was able to negate opportunity attacks. But my damage was crappy compared to any other barbarian. Crappy with a capital C.
But this combo can actually be an argument to keep the standard ASIs, as it can does a forced take on how to play a class, and sometimes leads to unique builds.

 

[Bill Zebub]

True story: I played a dex based barbarian wood elf. By sixth level I was running, I think like 150' or 160' feet a turn. I could run 110' a turn and still attack! Also was able to negate opportunity attacks. But my damage was crappy compared to any other barbarian. Crappy with a capital C.
But this combo can actually be an argument to keep the standard ASIs, as it can does a forced take on how to play a class, and sometimes leads to unique builds.

I have to admit I don't really see "a forced take on how to play a class" as a persuasive argument in favor of something.

It sounds like a fun build, and with floating ASIs you could still choose that approach if that's what you wanted to play, which feels to me like a win.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Why do you think they are supposed to be just as powerful in combat? Winter Eladrin, by the descriptions, are not the front-line fighters of the Eladrin society - that's Summer's role.

 

[Scott Christian]

I have to admit I don't really see "a forced take on how to play a class" as a persuasive argument in favor of something.

It sounds like a fun build, and with floating ASIs you could still choose that approach if that's what you wanted to play, which feels to me like a win.

I completely agree with you. But I can say I never would have thought of playing a barbarian that way were it not for the forced perspective part. That is all I was implying.

 

[LadyElect]

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?"

There’s something to be said for the difference is lessening racial ASI impact and skipping the gameplay loop of leveling and choosing feat vs ASI altogether. I don’t know that the jump here is quite the same. Point buy seems to serve the idea well enough while still retaining a “starting point”.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There’s something to be said for the difference is lessening racial ASI impact and skipping the gameplay loop of leveling and choosing feat vs ASI altogether. I don’t know that the jump here is quite the same. Point but seems to serve the idea well enough while still retaining a “starting point”.

Count me in. I hate having the choice between feats and ASIs. I want the feats, but the ASIs are too mathematically compelling.

Just like I hate having the choice between the initial ASI and the race I want to play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I hate having the choice between feats and ASIs. I want the feats, but the ASIs are too mathematically compelling.

Yeah. That's why I give both.

 

[Scott Christian]

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?

Because you also wanted a wizard that could bounce back after being dropped unconscious? Or you wanted a wizard that is good at intimidation? Or you wanted a wizard that has a better than average con? Or you wanted a wizard that has a good strength, and therefore, good athletic skills? Or you wanted a wizard that when they actually swung a sword had a chance to do some damage? Or you wanted a wizard that gets all those things, but has to live without that extra +1?
Or maybe you just wanted to play a half-orc wizard because it adds to the characterization in the campaign? Maybe it adds to the storyline and creates an interesting conflict?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Because you also wanted a wizard that could bounce back after being dropped unconscious? Or you wanted a wizard that is good at intimidation? Or you wanted a wizard that has a better than average con? Or you wanted a wizard that has a good strength, and therefore, good athletic skills? Or you wanted a wizard that when they actually swung a sword had a chance to do some damage? Or you wanted a wizard that gets all those things, but has to live without that extra +1?

With all those advantages to non-primary stats, you'd think more people would be putting their +2 there, and that race/class synergy would be less popular.

 

[Scott Christian]

With all those advantages to non-primary stats, you'd think more people would be putting their +2 there, and that race/class synergy would be less popular.

Very true. Very true. I still don't understand the absolute need to have that race/class combo. But, I didn't understand that need 20 years ago either. I think I am in the minority for this.