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

[Scribe]

So you're saying you are incapable of just making up an ASI on your own, but you're expecting the floating ASI people to do exactly that. Hmm.

Sorry what? I was referencing the many various PC options that have been provided under the 5e model of defined ASI. Yes, I can use those.

I can also use my own system if I prefer which leverages Background, and Class choice to also inform ASI.

I'm not expecting people who prefer floating to do anything but what 'floating' demands of them. Put the stats where you wish.

The POINT. Is the lack of definition, and the disconnect that then puts between rules, PC options, and world building FOR ME.

I've said this multiple times, so you either choose to ignore it, or...you simply dont accept it as a valid answer, but it is MY answer.

 

[Maxperson]

Would you also say it's min maxing to choose a race that gives you the best ability score improvements for your class?

Neither are min-maxing. Both are optimizing.

 

[Scribe]

Which edition was the best in doing design for races, in everyone's opinion?

Probably 3/3.5 for me. My favorite Tiefling PC of all time.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ultimately I am not terribly fussed what WotC does or doesn't do, as I have no problem with houseruling things. Though of course at some point it becomes a question of whether it might be easier to (again) write a game from scratch. And if official rules depart too far from my liking it might make me reluctant to join games using them, and official rules will be what most people will use because it simply is the easiest. Not that the ASIs are some sort of deal breaker for me when considering what game to join.

And I think races and ability scores probably need a rethink. Still, I feel that decoupling them completely might be a mistake. This game runs on archetypes, and I suspect people will be disappointed when they realise that the archetypes are not actually reflected in the rules. "What you mean my huge half-orc who looks like Hulk isn't any stronger than a halfling?" "What you mean my Legolas-wannabe elf isn't any more agile than a dwarf?"
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong and people don't care. We'll see, I guess.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Wrong. D&D elves are not Tolkien elves. You accuse me of conflating and then conflate two different elf types.

Ah, so we can only have DnD elves. DnD elves being what? Would they be the incredibly skilled scholars who report to their Deathless councilors on the changing of the world? Maybe the savage and brutal people who tear apart intruders into their forest? Are they the elves who sing songs that can make the stones weep? Or the ones who can navigate the oceans by ancestral memories?

Which exactly are the DnD elves? Because where I am sitting, that is a very very broad category.

Don't tell me what I am arguing, because that ain't it. Like that's not even close.

You know Max, conversations go faster if you follow "I'm not arguing that" with a "What I am arguing is..." and then tell the other person. Because otherwise that person has to then turn around and ask you to clarify.

Which you generally respond to with a "I already said, so I'm not going to repeat what you clearly don't understand" which generally just leaves the other person shrugging and saying "well, I said what I understood, so if you don't feel like clarifying, I'm just going to go with what I understand"

So, if a +2 dex doesn't define elves, what does it do?

I explained to you that human nature makes changing hard coding to floating work and the reverse fail.

No, you said people don't like change. Which is obvious. But not liking anything changing ever doesn't mean that they are right in what is harder to do.

The human variant has floating +1s, so those bonuses say nothing about the race.

The fact that a human can be as graceful as an elf, or as strong as an orc, or as tough as a dwarf, or as intelligent as a gnome... says nothing about humanity?

But orcs being strong says things about orcs. And elves being graceful says things about elves. And Dwarves being tough says things about dwarves....

How does this work out? Only a people who are mildly exceptional have a personality?

Show me the human who gets +2 with purely racial bonuses.

Variant human, +1 strength, +1 con, use my racially given feat to take heavy armor master for a +1 strength.

Or are you going to say that using my racial ability to take a feat doesn't count, but the goliath's racial Powerful Build does? Because that smells of a double standard.

Ditto. It's almost as if you're conflating racial bonuses with bonuses gained another way. Oh, wait.

So, an ASI gained from a racial ability at character creation doesn't count, simply because it is tied in with a feat? Why not?

Yes. Strawmen like that are indeed amusing. Nobody has argued that humans get no bonuses.

But they have kept talking about goliaths and elves getting +2 and therefore being stronger or more graceful than humans... without recognizing that the humans got a +1 at least, meaning that in reality, those elves anf goliaths are effectively +1 over the human, not +2.

Wrong. All I'm saying is that one informs the other. I never said they were the same thing.

But they don't inform each other. See Loxodon and see Mountain Dwarves. Loxodon have powerful build and no bonus, mountain dwarves have a bonus and no powerful build.

That's one of my arguments, yes.

Not really relevant. A bad decision on WotC's part does nothing to refute my argument.

So... a creature larger than human that isn't stronger than a human (and is actually weaker with no strength bonus) does nothing to refute your assertion that being larger than a human means you automatically have to be stronger?

The difference between a human and dwarf is minimal, and dwarves are stockier than humans, so the weights are similar. Goliath are larger.

Human average is 5'8" and 165 lbs. Mountain Dwarves are 4'5 and 165 lbs. Goliaths are 6'1" and 277 lbs. And just for giggles, Hill Dwarf 4'1" and 150 lbs

So, the Mountain Dwarf gets a +2 strength while being a foot and quarter shorter, while weighing the same. Hill Dwarves get no bonus while being only a quarter of a foot shorter and 15 lbs lighter. Golaiths are a quarter of foot taller and 112 lbs heaver, and have the +2 strength...

So, Dwarves are significantly shorter than humans, far bigger of difference than the difference between goliaths and humans. And they have exactly the same weight, while Goliaths are over one hundred pounds heavier than mountain dwarves.

Meanwhile, the difference between hill dwarves and mountain dwarves are closer to the difference between goliaths and humans.

If all you have been saying is that some strong woman somewhere is stronger than a man, then that point was over and done with 15 pages ago. Nobody on my side of things has claimed that all men are stronger than all women. I didn't realize that you were making a point that nobody was arguing against.

Well, it was a bit different, you just decided to hyper focus on the most pointless part of it.

I mean, after all, how many medieval knights do you think are using modern diets and training regimes in DnD land? Seems that DnD adventurers would be far closer to the standards of the 1920's wouldn't it?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Another way of saying that is, "Floating ASIs don't cover everyone's preferences."

Well, DnD is notoriously bad at being the Sims.

 

[Faolyn]

If you think that, why even have different stats then?

Because they're useful tools for measuring things in-game. They are not the end-all and be-all of a character.

Again, so what? Casters can do same damage with spells. And the mostly weapons are not the same. Thematically dex weapons are different.

Oh, so here theme is important! It's not important when a scary half-orc can shrug off a killing blow, but it's suddenly important now?

And that is bit weird, and is due how awkwardly the should-really-be-large-but-isn't species work. But at least it is usually given to species whose niche it is to be strong, so it is not that jarring.

Speaking of which, loxodon (elephant-people, if you're not aware) are bigger and heavier than goliaths and get no Strength bonus at all--but a Strength 10 loxodon can lift a halfling in its trunk, and as a race they get Powerful Build. Meanwhile, both slender githyanki and short dwarfs get +2 Strength. Centaurs also have +2 Strength, even though "logically" their human arms shouldn't be particularly strong. And orcs are only a bit larger than the average human, but they get both a Strength bonus and Powerful Build.

This is why I don't care about the ASIs. They're often entirely random or have weak justifications. And that's not even getting into mental stats.

Plus, of course, ideas about what a race is like may change as time goes on. In 1e, half-orcs were specced as assassins, not warriors. I don't think they could even be barbarians back then. Who knows what half-orcs will look like by the time 6th or 7th edition comes out?

No. Because I have never claimed that every half-orc should be able to be stronger than every elf, merely that if the half-orc decides to focus on the niche of their species they will be better at this than the elf. And vice versa with the elf and dex.

Sure. A person who focuses on their niche will be better than someone who doesn't. So why should an orc who doesn't focus on strength have to be better than or almost as good as someone a non-orc who does?

PCs can be usual in their competence and ambition, but I don't wan them to be (or at leas start as) some sort of superheroes that do not resemble the rest of their species.

All elves have Fey Heritage, Trance, Keen Senses, and Elf Weapon Training. Therefore, all elf PCs will resemble the rest of their species.

And why does this 'but PCs are unusual' just apply to things that are represented via ASIs? Why can an elf have the half-orc's niche of being strong but halfling cannot just have wings like aarakockra?

Because D&D isn't a point-buy game like GURPS where you can buy any traits you want for your character? Because everyone has the same six stats but they all have different traits, and no matter what you might want to think, ASIs and traits are actually very different things? Because historically, halflings don't have wings, so talk to your DM if you want to play one who does and I'm pretty sure that in the old-old Spelljammer comic there was a human with wings so there's precedent.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Trust me, I'm aware you dont care. You dont have to.

I didnt buy the Ravenloft guide, because it doesnt have things in it which I want. I may get Fizban's, because they seem to have at least put Alignment in, but we will see.

I almost certainly wont buy Strixhaven, as again, it wont have ASI on the PC options, and its not a path of game design I will support with $.

Great, so you aren't paying them for races. The mystery of what you are paying them for moves on.

 

[Faolyn]

Probably because nobody is arguing that. Racial bonuses are just one part of what makes a race feel like that race. An integral part, but only one part none the less.

So then answer the question: what makes a Dex +2 halfling feel differently than a Dex +2 elf? If you point out all of their traits and culture, then why does that Dex +2 even matter in the first place?

 

[Micah Sweet]

More seriously, do the differences between Halflings and Elves (and Aarakocra!) cut it for you? Or do they feel functionally the same because they all get +2 Dex?

Well, in my game I start with traditional archetypes and cultures and go from there. The game seems to moving away from those things in favor of a "mix and match" philosophy, both in mechanics and lore. THAT's what I have an issue with. The official presentation is moving in a direction I just dont care for.