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

[Bill Zebub]

Nothing. That is why I asked the questions: Why not just let players choose their ability scores?

Heck, even those arguing about ASI and feats, this solves that problem as well. No need to choose attribute improvement, you already have the attributes you want. Now it's actually growth of your character through feats and spells and skills and etc.

I thought I answered this before.

It's still a game and games are all about constraints. So not that you couldn't let people pick scores, but that doesn't mean it's "forcing" what should be a choice to give everybody the same points to distribute, wherever they choose. It is forcing what should be a choice to say, "But you...you want to be the XY combination so you'll have to play it in this certain way, while everybody else at the table gets to play however they want."

 

[Scott Christian]

This kind of D&D tradition about elves being "haughty", has made the word "haughty" into a synonym of "racist".

Every elf that is "haughty" is a supremacist racist.

I dont want to see the word "haughty" in future publications because I dont want a game about racism.



To speak the dialect of ones own elven community "properly", is pride in self-identity, and is good.

However, the moment one "disapproves" of the dialect of other elven communities, it starts to become supremacist and racist. Yuck.



To subordinate an other subrace is a form of supremacism and racism.

You connote haughty with racism. Is it possible that many do not? Could haughty be the type of elf modeled after a Native American that wants to preserve the land and dislikes the ways of the dwarves and humans that mine and deforest? Again, you seem to be only looking at it from one side. You can play the semantic game and change the word around to "noble" or "naturalistic," but it could be described as haughty as well. There is no racism in their actions, only a dislike of what the dwarves and humans do to the land.

And all language has a "proper" set of rules. It doesn't mean the people that do not use the rules don't value the way they speak. It certainly doesn't mean the professor studying colloquialisms and the interpretation of dialect on meaning "disapproves" of their usage. In fact, even though he knows the "proper" rules, he may still celebrate and enjoy some of the things that the dialect he is studying brings to the language. And in fact, he may write a paper, and later that paper will convince the publisher of dictionaries to reinterpret their proper rule. And that is one of the ways language changes. So again, you only view this one way - the "proper" person "disapproving" of the other.

 

[Scott Christian]

I thought I answered this before.

It's still a game and games are all about constraints. So not that you couldn't let people pick scores, but that doesn't mean it's "forcing" what should be a choice to give everybody the same points to distribute, wherever they choose. It is forcing what should be a choice to say, "But you...you want to be the XY combination so you'll have to play it in this certain way, while everybody else at the table gets to play however they want."

Right. So remove this one constraint. Why does the point buy, die roll, and standard array need to stay as a constraint? You are removing one constraint out of a hundred. The player still has to pick a limited number of skills. They still have a limited number of weapons to choose from. They still have a limited number of spells. They still have a limits on their armor. They still can only choose one archetype. They still have to choose a single feat, even though they may want three. They still have to be constrained when choosing armor. And the cycle repeats itself over and over through the levels.
So why have the constraint there when it causes so much debate?

 

[Yaarel]

You connote haughty with racism. Is it possible that many do not?

I assume most people dont use the word "haughty" to mean racist supremacist − but D&D does!

The descriptions about the elf being "haughty" are always in a context of (supremacist) superiority and (racist) purity. Even when the elf is feeling sorry for other races, it is racist supremacism. Yuck.

Could haughty be the type of elf modeled after a Native American that wants to preserve the land.

To "preserve the land" sounds like ecoscience. Perhaps, Native Americans are more about autonomy, freedom, and preservation of sacred heritage. One can be proud of ones own culture without being distainful of other cultures. Native Americans seem good about this.

When Native Americans preserve their tribal heritage, they are cherishing their self-identity. This is never "haughty". They are just being themselves − who they are.

and dislikes the ways of the dwarves and humans that mine and deforest? Again, you seem to be only looking at it from one side.

Meh. It is normal for different communities to have conflictive needs, and require access to the same limited resource. That is why we negotiate and have legal systems that we hope are fair.

And all language has a "proper" set of rules.

I already said, speaking ones own language or dialect "properly" is good. It is the notion that other languages and other dialects are "inferior" that becomes the problem.

 

[mrpopstar]

I assume most people dont use the word "haughty" to mean racist supremacist − but D&D does!

The descriptions about the elf being "haughty" are always in a context of (supremacist) superiority and (racist) purity. Even when the elf is feeling sorry for other races, it is racist supremacism. Yuck.

It would definitely be nice to see some nuance here. Shorter-lived lives must surely look like gasps of chaos as the centuries press on, but the racist overtones to that observation has got to go. At least in terms of painting a whole race with racist attitudes and agenda as a base assumption.

 

[Maxperson]

"Against type" means, to create an oversimplified racist stereotype.

No. A type does not have to be racist.

Then to find one of the members of the race who is the "exception" to the racist stereotype.

This is also false, since types are not all racist.

This isn't real life where "types" are fictionally created and then applied to a people of a certain race. In fantasy play, types can exist as real things, in which case no racism is involved at all.

 

[Maxperson]

This kind of D&D tradition about elves being "haughty", has made the word "haughty" into a synonym of "racist".

Every elf that is "haughty" is a supremacist racist.

I dont want to see the word "haughty" in future publications because I dont want a game about racism.

Some people playing a haughty elf play racist elves. Some do not. Don't assume that haughty=racism, because it doesn't. I've seen many simply played as arrogant.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Right. So remove this one constraint. Why does the point buy, die roll, and standard array need to stay as a constraint? You are removing one constraint out of a hundred. The player still has to pick a limited number of skills. They still have a limited number of weapons to choose from. They still have a limited number of spells. They still have a limits on their armor. They still can only choose one archetype. They still have to choose a single feat, even though they may want three. They still have to be constrained when choosing armor. And the cycle repeats itself over and over through the levels.
So why have the constraint there when it causes so much debate?

I just don't think you are comparing apples and apples.

Yes, there are lots of different constraints in the game. One is in how you choose attributes, and another is where you put your attribute bonuses.

In my mind (you may disagree) the one about the attributes is a matter of balance. If players pick their own scores then either challenges get too easy, or the DM has increase the challenge. But since different tables will have different behaviors, it would be very hard to write published adventures. So a fixed system of attribute selection helps balance the game.

The fixed ASI rule has absolutely nothing to do with balance. It's about tradition. Getting rid of it doesn't (or shouldn't; it's possible there's an exception case I haven't considered) cause any other parts of the game to work less well, to change in any way. The only opposition to it is one of perception.

So maybe "pick your own attributes" is a great idea, and we should open a thread and discuss it. I'm not saying we should dismiss it out of hand, I'm just saying that it's not really valid to compare it to getting rid of fixed ASIs.

If you want a valid comparison, pick something that is about tradition and flavor, not balance. "If we get rid of fixed ASIs, why not get rid of druids and metal armor?" (Which has been mentioned in this thread, although it does have a tiny balance component.)

I'll point out that they did get rid of the requirement that Paladins be Lawful Good, which was a constraint that served no mechanical purpose. And some people were/are upset about that. They did get rid of gender-based ASIs, which was a constraint that served no mechanical purpose. And some people were/are upset about that. I'm sure if I were to keep thinking I'd come up with more.

 

[Maxperson]

You connote haughty with racism. Is it possible that many do not? Could haughty be the type of elf modeled after a Native American that wants to preserve the land and dislikes the ways of the dwarves and humans that mine and deforest?

Or model it after a noble.

 

[mrpopstar]

Some people playing a haughty elf play racist elves. Some do not. Don't assume that haughty=racism, because it doesn't. I've seen many simply played as arrogant.

Arrogance, yes. Ignorance, no.

I'm not wholly against evil factions with ugly ideas that we can smite for XP, but the softly generalized sentiment that elves view themselves as racially superior is... reductive? Unsure what word I'm looking for, but racism isn't something we want to promote among the good guys.