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

[the Jester]

I was resistant too at first!

Then I realized the Tasha's optional rules make it more possible to do creative campaigns like "everyone plays a halfling."

I really hate this argument. You can play an all-halfling (or whatever) game just fine with fixed ability modifiers. Not every pc needs a maximized prime ability score for their class; they never have, but especially in 5e, where the math is bounded, you really can do just fine without an 18.

"I want to be able to min-max my stats" is, to me, not a good argument for detracting from the meaningfulness of what is supposed to be one of the main building blocks of your character.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

And thus we don't need to answer those. And regardless of the word used, the concept is clear. These groups of creatures are different to each other. Which should be obvious, if they weren't we couldn't tell them apart from humans or each other!

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.

Yes. It just seems weird that some people seem to think that essential differences between groups is problematic in itself, which literally would mean that the whole concept of fantasy species is problematic! Furthermore, I don't think most people have issues with 'smart species' such as gnomes or vulcans; now depicting a group as dumb has far more negative connotations, though I don't think that should be completely written off as an option either. For example gorillas are pretty smart, but still obviously not nearly as smart as humans. Certainly conceptually a fantasy species with similar intelligence should be possible?

 

[BookTenTiger]

I really hate this argument. You can play an all-halfling (or whatever) game just fine with fixed ability modifiers. Not every pc needs a maximized prime ability score for their class; they never have, but especially in 5e, where the math is bounded, you really can do just fine without an 18.

"I want to be able to min-max my stats" is, to me, not a good argument for detracting from the meaningfulness of what is supposed to be one of the main building blocks of your character.

I'll tell you a story from my own experience:

We did a little one-shot adventure to fill in the backstory of a character. Everyone rolled up Goliaths to represent members of a Goliath hunting party. Another guy in our group really wanted to be a Goliath monk, fitting into the idea of the Big, Strong Brawler.

He felt incredibly ineffective.

In a later side adventure he rolled up a Halfling Monk. He said he felt so much more effective as a Halfling Monk, due to the Ability Score Improvements, than the Goliath Monk.

The Ability Score Improvements got in the way of his character concept.

Now I've been playing a Dwarf Wizard in the same campaign. I created this character a while back, so I accepted the fact that I would start with a 15 Intelligence. I specifically chose spells that didn't require Saving Throws or Spell Attacks (like Illusion spells), and chose to be a Divination Wizard so I could save those Portents for when I really needed to hit. Until 4th Level, my Constitution was higher than my Intelligence.

I've had a lot of fun playing this character! It's the very definition of playing "against type."

However, let's say someone else wanted to play a Dwarf Wizard. If they went through all the same hoops I did, they would just have... the same Dwarf Wizard, playing against type. On the other hand, they could use the Tasha's rule to just have a high Intelligence, and be an effective Evoker or Abjurer or whatever.

I don't really see a big deal in that.

 

[TwoSix]

Any racial feature can be seen as essentialism, and now that ASIs have been freed, other elements of race in D&D have come to the fore. There's just no reason to have fantasy races if they dont differ from each other. If anyone can be anything, they might as well all be human.

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.

 

[Malmuria]

For example gorillas are pretty smart, but still obviously not nearly as smart as humans. Certainly conceptually a fantasy species with similar intelligence should be possible?

Well, but comparing other humans to primates is a staple of real-world racism, and was the context for much of the pulp fiction that informed fantasy literature, including dnd. So, even if it might make sense from an in-fiction world building perspective, to see such a parallel show up in a fantasy game is extremely off-putting to many. As discussed in another thread, I think sci fi does a better job, as a genre, of including such elements in a critical way, whereas in fantasy, especially fantasy gaming, the problematic implications of these representations is hand waved in favor of 'just having fun.'

So in sum, real world racism relies on the fantasy of essentialist differences between groups of people. The idea that different cultures in different parts of world have essential, species-level differences--that is the fantasy of the racist worldview. So when creating a fantasy world, one should be careful that the premise isn't something like, 'what if the racist worldview were actually real?' I don't know if I'm making sense but hopefully I am

 

[Undrave]

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.

Yeah, limiting racial ASI to STR, DEX and CON would probably not have been viewed the same way at all, but having races that are just straight up better at INT, WIS, or CHA causes issues.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, but comparing other humans to primates is a staple of real-world racism, and was the context for much of the pulp fiction that informed fantasy literature, including dnd. So, even if it might make sense from an in-fiction world building perspective, to see such a parallel show up in a fantasy game is extremely off-putting to many. As discussed in another thread, I think sci fi does a better job, as a genre, of including such elements in a critical way, whereas in fantasy, especially fantasy gaming, the problematic implications of these representations is hand waved in favor of 'just having fun.'

Sure. It certainly is a thing that could easily lead to unfortunate implications. I still wouldn't say that it cannot be done at all, just that is should be done with care. For example I doubt many people would have problem if there were some species of slightly smarter than normal animals, that still hadn't quite human-level intelligence. You know, smart wolves that can understand most of your speech etc. Pretty common trope actually.

So in sum, real world racism relies on the fantasy of essentialist differences between groups of people. The idea that different cultures in different parts of world have essential, species-level differences--that is the fantasy of the racist worldview. So when creating a fantasy world, one should be careful that the premise isn't something like, 'what if the racist worldview were actually real?' I don't know if I'm making sense but hopefully I am

Right. In real world different groups of humans do not have essentialist differences and it is racism to claim that they do. But if due this it is problematic to say that different groups of fantasy peoples have essentialist differences, then fantasy species simply cannot exist, as the definition of species is based on essential difference. If we cannot say that elves are different from humans, then elves cannot exist. Simple as that. And perhaps they shouldn't. It is possible that that is the eventual conclusion.

 

[the Jester]

I'll tell you a story from my own experience:

We did a little one-shot adventure to fill in the backstory of a character. Everyone rolled up Goliaths to represent members of a Goliath hunting party. Another guy in our group really wanted to be a Goliath monk, fitting into the idea of the Big, Strong Brawler.

He felt incredibly ineffective.

In a later side adventure he rolled up a Halfling Monk. He said he felt so much more effective as a Halfling Monk, due to the Ability Score Improvements, than the Goliath Monk.

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.

 

[Faolyn]

is it Strength, or Might ?

It's Strength.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

was the context for much of the pulp fiction that informed fantasy literature, including dnd

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.

So in sum, real world racism relies on the fantasy of essentialist differences between groups of people. The idea that different cultures in different parts of world have essential, species-level differences--that is the fantasy of the racist worldview. So when creating a fantasy world, one should be careful that the premise isn't something like, 'what if the racist worldview were actually real?' I don't know if I'm making sense but hopefully I am

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.