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

[Malmuria]

The argument has been made many times. Elves as a race are more dexterous than humans, so that should be prescribed in the racial bonuses. Dwarves are more hardy(+2 con) so that should be prescribed in the racial bonuses. You can argue that you don't agree, but you can't argue that the arguments have not been made.

That part I get. What I don't understand is why it needs to be prescribed by wotc in the player's handbook. A game with floating asi as the default rule is perfectly capable of producing the play experience and archetypes you mention.

The way I see it, there are a few dials that dms and players can turn in 5e to make it the kind of fantasy they want. Floating racial asi just adds one more little dial. You turn it one way to get dexterous elves and reinforce that archetype, I turn it another way to reinforce archetype of class (e.g. a dwarven rogue who is as agile as any other starting rogue). You turn it one way to get what represents to you a species average, I turn it another way to represent the exceptional nature of the pcs.

All that being said, is it really about the play experience, since floating asi can accommodate your preferred play experience? Or is it more about the reading experience, opening them up and finding the familiar tropes present and certified by the game's creators?

 

[Chaosmancer]

That when they do re-release the original races, in whatever product comes next for them, that they wont have ASI assigned, it will be floating. I mean just like that thread where everyone was talking about the lineages (Reborn, Hexblood, Dhamphir) and how we were overreacting.

Well, Strixhaven will have the same thing, as we predicted.

Racial ASI is going away, and I find that to be a flaw. Simple as that.

And you present this as a fact, despite there being no announcement. You don't even know if it will be a re-release of the PHB or the sixth edition of the game, let alone what changes they will actually make.

This whole argument is like me going to the DMV to protest that my driver's license won't be valid for my flying car. Maybe, I'm jumping the gun a little by declaring the complete unfairness of a policy that doesn't yet exist, but will one day.

 

[Maxperson]

That part I get. What I don't understand is why it needs to be prescribed by wotc in the player's handbook. A game with floating asi as the default rule is perfectly capable of producing the play experience and archetypes you mention.

It can make a particular PC elf(and not even all PC elves) that way, but not elves as a race that way. The floating ASI fails utterly to be able to create elves as a race being more dexterous than humans as a race.

The way I see it, there are a few dials that dms and players can turn in 5e to make it the kind of fantasy they want. Floating racial asi just adds one more little dial.

As an optional rule, I support its inclusion. It just shouldn't be the default for the race.

You turn it one way to get dexterous elves and reinforce that archetype, I turn it another way to reinforce archetype of class (e.g. a dwarven rogue who is as agile as any other starting rogue). You turn it one way to get what represents to you a species average, I turn it another way to represent the exceptional nature of the pcs.

That only turns it for an individual, not the race. You get A dexterous elf(singular). A singular dexterous elf is not an archetype. In order to turn it for the race and create an archetype, you would have to prescribe the floating bonus to dex.

All that being said, is it really about the play experience, since floating asi can accommodate your preferred play experience? Or is it more about the reading experience, opening them up and finding the familiar tropes present and certified by the game's creators?

The floating ASI cannot accommodate my preferred play experience. Only prescribes stat bonuses can do that.

 

[Krachek]

"That if the player decides to focus on the thing their PC's species is known for, they are guaranteed to be best in the party at it."

How does this not translate into "make them the best wizards"? Are gnomes known for being the best barbarians instead? Seems kind of like you made a very broad statement, and are now walking it back.

To be the best at something is related to the class choice not the race choice, Race features get less and less important as you level.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This discussion was about ability scores, not about classes.

In my preceding post I literally gave an example of how I handle this in my game with orc and eldri strength.

I know about your example, it doesn't apply to the post I responded to I thought.

So, your real point is that you want to set up so that a player who is playing an intelligence boosting race is automatically going to be the character with the highest intelligence,. They might need to invest a little, they certainly can't have rolled for stats, but if they focus on their intelligence that number is higher for them than for anyone else in the party.

Okay. Tell me, how do you see this happening in a party with an Orc, a Half-Orc, Minotaur and Goliath? If all of them focus on their strength.... they are exactly the same? No one can be the best right? What about a group comprised of a Kenku, a Lotusden halfling, a wood elf and an Aarcrockra? Can one of them be the best in the party at Dexterity?

So, why are we setting up a model of who is going to be "the best" that falls apart so quickly?

 

[mrpopstar]

Dungeons & Dragons offers a specific brand of fantasy. Prescribed racial abilities are part of the brand.

That being said, D&D also sets out to be accommodating to those who want something different at their own tables. That's where extended options like those made available in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything come into play.

I fully expect that a future Player's Handbook will present races with prescribed racial abilities as the brand has always done, but will also include the variant made available in TCoE.

I think Wizards of the Coast is eager to please the whole of their fanbase the best they can, but they also have a branded experience dating back nearly half a century that they're trying to protect.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This has came up a few times and I think it bears mentioning that when it comes to bell curves that a small change in the mean can have a profound change on the tail ends of the distribution.

For example, a fact about weight lifting that's true of only 1% of humans may be true of 5% of goliaths.

So minor variations in mean aren't trivial in all respects.

That could very well be true.

But do we honestly care about 5% of the Goliath population? Or do we care about Throgg, son of Ram, who was born amidst a primal storm? He's less than 1% of the population, but he is also the POV character that those other thousand or so Goliath's aren't.

 

[Malmuria]

That only turns it for an individual, not the race. You get A dexterous elf(singular). A singular dexterous elf is not an archetype. In order to turn it for the race and create an archetype, you would have to prescribe the floating bonus to dex.

Interesting. But that link is implicit in the phb text. The entry for elves says they are "graceful," but also says a lot of other things that may not be true for your particular elf and are not represented in the mechanics of the class (they "are talented artisans," "take up adventuring out of wanderlust," and "reply to petty insults with disdain and to serious insults with vengeance."). If anything I would think the MM entries for different races would be more indicative of race typicality

 

[Chaosmancer]

The benefits of hard coded racial ASI's.

• They help reinforce basic facts and tropes about the races of the world.

Because everyone knows that a Minotaur and a Mountain Dwarf are equally matched in a wrestling match, a Kenku is just as good with a bow as an elf, and a hobgoblin can match an endurance match with a warforged.

• Allows players to go against the grain, but this has a cost which tends to make it a more interesting choice.
• They have been part of D&D for at least the last 20 years or so.

Disagree with both of these. Well, not that it has been part of the game for 20 years, just that it should matter. And I don't find it more interesting toincrease the cost of playing a wizard if I don't have a +2 Int.

• It's much easier to house rule a change of them from hard coded to floating than the other way around.

How? Seriously, I just can't wrap my head around it. Like in the way it is easier to pick up a penny instead of a nickel? Because houseruling them into hard code is trivially easy. I've never understood how someone can see this as so difficult. Plus, even if they aren't hard coded you can make the same decision

Meanwhile, to get them from hard-coded to floating, you have to argue against being a power-gamer, potentially explain why your character isn't a stereotype of their race, and generally just go through a lot of hassle. Sure, if you are the DM you can just say "they float" and it is done, but from the player side the person who wants hard-coded racial archetypes has a much easier time keeping their characters identity in the floating system than the reverse.

 

[Maxperson]

Dungeons & Dragons offers a specific brand of fantasy. Prescribed racial abilities are part of the brand.

That being said, D&D also sets out to be accommodating to those who want something different at their own tables. That's where extended options like those made available in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything come into play.

I fully expect that a future Player's Handbook will present races with prescribed racial abilities as the brand has always done, but will also include the variant made available in TCoE.

I think Wizards of the Coast is eager to please the whole of their fanbase the best they can, but they also have a branded experience dating back nearly half a century that they're trying to protect.

This is what I think as well.