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

Is it possible divorce character creation from the default assumptions of the larger game world? Or do you look at the mechanics of elves, and build out a game world by imagining 1000 elves generated as if they were PCs?
I see an elf PC, and I see a representative of their people, though perhaps an extraordinary representative. He should still be more like other elves than like humans, or dwarves.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Or, conversely, that the character options need not be representative of everything that is in the fiction of the game. If you are playing a 1e game, your dwarf is not allowed to be a cleric. But that's just the character option, and not representative of the game world: as indicated by the 1e monster manual description for dwarf, dwarf clerics exist in the implied setting, because the PCs might encounter them.
Sure, they need not be. But that detracts from the game world's consistency. I get that this isn't an issue for everyone, but it's a gigantic one for me.

Also, you can be a 1e dwarf cleric once Unearthed Arcana drops. ;)
 

No it isn't. The difference is more than a strength/dex bonus.
We are talking about D&D elves! There is not much more difference than the ability score improvements.

A Strength wood elf is an accurate grugach. Even just taking a class like Ranger would complete all the other grugach cultural requirements, like spear, animal handling, and so on.

There is no real difference.

A 5e wood elf that has the +2 go to Strength is a traditional grugach − just like the Players Handbook says it is!
 
Last edited:

If 20 players at my tables made 20 elf PCs most of them would have high dex. And the ones that didn't would be valued for going against type.

If we played with floating ASIs then they would likely be all over the place. They would still get picked for some classes over others I would imagine but for abilities now instead of stats which would probably just end up with weird results. Players would have trouble playing against type as well because it is no longer well defined.
 

I fully get not liking the racial ASIs due how dependent 5e classes are on specific ability scores, but I don't get how the basic concept of what they're supposed to represent seems to be so hard to get for some.

A half-orc will have higher minimum, maximum and average strength than an elf. Because as a species elves just are not as strong. Just like humans are not as strong as gorillas. And sure, an exceptionally strong human might be stronger than a weak or even average gorilla, but an exceptionally strong gorilla would be even stronger. The only weirdness in the system is that logically there should be different absolute maximums too, even after levelling ASIs and realistically the differences should in some cases be larger. But these are concession for the game balance.
 

Yes they have. They have argued that because bears (goliaths) are stronger than humans that horses (elves) must be weaker.

After all, everything is a different species, it isn't like we can easily point to horses that are incredibly fast and horses that are incredibly strong.

Or dogs that have incredibly endurance and dogs that have a superior tracking ability.

Or bears that are incredibly good at climbing, and bears that are incredibly strong.
This sounds a little bit like you're referring to a post I made. If so, let's clear this up- I have never argued that "because bears (goliaths) are stronger than humans that horses (elves) must be weaker", or anything even close to it. If it's my post you're referring to, you are mischaracterizing it. My point is that different species are different and ASIs tied to race/species are therefore a coherent, logical idea that helps to reflect the game world.
 

I fully get not liking the racial ASIs due how dependent 5e classes are on specific ability scores, but I don't get how the basic concept of what they're supposed to represent seems to be so hard to get for some.

A half-orc will have higher minimum, maximum and average strength than an elf. Because as a species elves just are not as strong. Just like humans are not as strong as gorillas. And sure, an exceptionally strong human might be stronger than a weak or even average gorilla, but an exceptionally strong gorilla would be even stronger. The only weirdness in the system is that logically there should be different absolute maximums too, even after levelling ASIs and realistically the differences should in some cases be larger. But these are concession for the game balance.

I don't think anybody is having trouble "getting" that. I think people who are opposed to racial ASIs are just saying that we should treat "as a species" differently from "as a player character".
 

It just occurred to me that I would love to watch a game show where two groups of people who vehemently oppose each other on an esoteric point in a niche hobby take turns trying to persuade a 3rd group of people, who know nothing about the hobby, that they are right and the other side is wrong.

I'm just picturing the expressions on non-gamer faces as we try to explain how important this is.
 

We are talking about D&D elves! There is not much more difference than the ability score improvements.

A Strength wood elf is an accurate grugach. Even just taking a class like Ranger would complete all the other grugach cultural requirements, like spear, animal handling, and so on.

There is no real difference.

A 5e wood elf that has the +2 go to Strength is a traditional grugach − just like the Players Handbook says it is!
In the UA that had grugrachs in them, they got +2 Dex, +1 Str, proficiency with spear, longbow, shortbow, and net, and one druid cantrip.
 

If others want to do something different, there should be a page of optional rules in the phb or the dmg for those groups to use. Correct?

No its as simple as making Tasha's default and obvious. You dont need a ton of text for that. You then provide the rules as they have been since 5e released.
 

Remove ads

Top