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

[Faolyn]

But you actually don't seem to want to sue them to measure things...

Of course I do! My greatsword-wielding kalashtar fighter would be weird if she didn't get to add her Strength bonus to her attack and damage rolls, just like my rapier-wielding tiefling rogue would be weird if she didn't get to add her Dex bonus.

What I don't want is to use stats to force players to play in a specific way.

Yeah, fair. I actually think that some of the official ASI assignments are weird too and do not agree with them. And that's part of why I've said in couple of posts that they're somewhat poorly handled. But I still like the concept.

Which is why you can put them wherever you think is most appropriate using floating ASIs. You aren't limited to the poorly-handled official rulings.

Yes, sure. And I think the removing of ASIs will affect those future concepts. And some of those archetypes we now think as obvious will vanish. Its not necessarily a bad thing, but if you like them it might be.

The concepts will only vanish if you're one of those people who insist that you "can't" play a race/class combination if the race's ASIs don't support the class. (And yes, I've had people say that I'm literally failing at D&D if I don't mixmax in this way.)

Sure, in some ways.

In every way that matters.

But that is the direction floating ASIs is taking it to.

Just because you can decide where your stats go doesn't mean you're anywhere near point buy levels.

No they aren't. It just happens that some things are easier to measure with ASIs and some with traits and in other ways. And what those things are is just due what things D&D decided to measure with ability scores decades ago.

Yes, they are. You can't measure Darkvision (or infravision) with a stat. You can't measure Luck with a stat. You can't measure Dexterity with the ability to Tinker. They're different things with different purposes.

And historically half orcs were stronger than halflings. Same thing.

And that changed, as all things do.

 

[LadyElect]

It’s been a few pages since it was mentioned last but for those that would like to see floating racial ASIs, I’m curious how that would be perceived if they were attached to class instead of being vague increases. In looking for resources, I came across this nifty module that tries to still provide some narrative center to the scores while decoupling necessary race+class combinations:

Class Modifier Module for 5th Edition by GabeJamesGames

A narrative-driven, character creation tool for modifiers by class rather than race.

gabejamesgames.itch.io

It essentially attempts to examine the 3 core ability scores for each class and takes a narrative approach for players to build out their +2/+1 (or potential +1/+1/+1) there instead.

It seems like an idea that could still benefit those that want to portray races which lean toward certain classes culturally in the lore without statistically punishing PC off-branding come game time. Of course, it doesn’t account for how to make up for those races that exceed 3 initial ASIs (human, half-elf, etc.) and thus requires some extra work elsewhere. But I also think that’s where more emphasis on racial feat options to build out individual racial quirks can fill in for the losses. I find those aspects more character defining than being one of 10 strong or quick races anyway.

Any thoughts? Does this actually “do more” for you than just calling it a free +2/+1 with your racial choice?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I do want to acknowledge something here.

Even though I am fully in favor of floating ASIs, I do wish it were possible to make half-orcs stronger than the other races, and halflings more nimble, and elves all have higher charisma (which, really, makes more sense to me than dexterity) without it affecting optimization. I mean, I agree it "makes sense" for half-orcs to have a higher strength score. It does. It's just that with D&D mechanics the price we pay for that is half-orcs (or any race that gets +2 Str) make the best fighters. Which is not ok with me.

The argument is sometimes made that the other races "make up for it in other ways" but, really, they don't. Sure, the elf can't be put to sleep and the halfling is lucky, but neither of those really compares to a straight +1/+1 to all combat rolls.

The fault is really in the simplistic combat model of D&D. I really wish Int, Dex, and Str all contributed to martial combat roughly equally, but also differently, in a way that it was very hard to optimize. For example, it could vary depending on both tactical environment and the nature of your foe. That way your human swordswoman or halfing axeman...ling (?) could be just as effective as the half-orc in combat, but through speed and smarts, not just raw power. In my ideal world, two characters whose Strength, Dex, and Int bonuses all totaled to the same value would be equally effective; it's just that some combinations would hit more, some would do more damage when they do hit, and some would score more crits. Or something like that. And it wouldn't matter if you have a 22 in one stat and 10s in the other two, or all 14's.

And then do the same thing for spellcasting.

But, alas, that's not D&D. So I'll play with floating ASIs (either officially or unofficially) and assume that "Strength" encompasses more than just your dead lift max. But I agree it's not a perfect solution, just the best we can do with D&D.

 

[abirdcall]

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

Yes but because the mechanics reflect the narrative it works.

If we are just picking out stats with no regard for what they mean then it is better to play a boardgame.

Personally when I make a character I set goals for myself related to narrative identity and then try to make the "best" version of that. Sometimes that means the class's main stat is a 14 or 15. It's fine.

 

[abirdcall]

I recently created a character for a new game. The character is a warlock, not a rogue, but has a kind of rouge-ish background (prone to stealing things and fixing card games). I used the floating ASI to accentuate this by putting the +2 into dex. So here's an example of how I used the floating ASI to tie the character more into her background and also the setting of the dm, rather than to optimize by putting it into charisma.

Now, is that +5% going to matter a whole lot once we start playing and I'm rolling sleight of hand checks? A little bit (5%, to be exact). Nevertheless, to the extent that it makes any difference, the floating ASI can absolutely be used to build a connection to the setting and the character's specific history within that setting.

How does them having a +2 to sex for being rogue like enhance the narrative identity of their race?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I do want to acknowledge something here.

Even though I am fully in favor of floating ASIs, I do wish it were possible to make half-orcs stronger than the other races, and halflings more nimble, and elves all have higher charisma (which, really, makes more sense to me than dexterity) without it affecting optimization. I mean, I agree it "makes sense" for half-orcs to have a higher strength score. It does. It's just that with D&D mechanics the price we pay for that is half-orcs (or any race that gets +2 Str) make the best fighters. Which is not ok with me.

The argument is sometimes made that the other races "make up for it in other ways" but, really, they don't. Sure, the elf can't be put to sleep and the halfling is lucky, but neither of those really compares to a straight +1/+1 to all combat rolls.

The fault is really in the simplistic combat model of D&D. I really wish Int, Dex, and Str all contributed to martial combat roughly equally, but also differently, in a way that it was very hard to optimize. For example, it could vary depending on both tactical environment and the nature of your foe. That way your human swordswoman or halfing axeman...ling (?) could be just as effective as the half-orc in combat, but through speed and smarts, not just raw power. In my ideal world, two characters whose Strength, Dex, and Int bonuses all totaled to the same value would be equally effective; it's just that some combinations would hit more, some would do more damage when they do hit, and some would score more crits. Or something like that. And it wouldn't matter if you have a 22 in one stat and 10s in the other two, or all 14's.

And then do the same thing for spellcasting.

But, alas, that's not D&D. So I'll play with floating ASIs (either officially or unofficially) and assume that "Strength" encompasses more than just your dead lift max. But I agree it's not a perfect solution, just the best we can do with D&D.

Yeah, extremely well said, than you! And I fully agree with you on what the ideal game would look like in this regard. I think the only difference between us is that in that assessment of balance vs. thematic sensemakery I don't value the former quite as much as you do, so I take the racial ASIs and consider the slight imbalance an acceptable price. But ideally I wouldn't need to make that sacrifice, nor you yours.

 

[Malmuria]

How does them having a +2 to sex for being rogue like enhance the narrative identity of their race?

the typo made this question really confusing!

It doesn't enhance the narrative identity of their race, but it does serve to connect them to the setting, and is an example of using ASI for narrative effect rather than optimizing. The character is a water genasi and by default gets a +2 Con, +1Wis, none of which strikes me as being very "watery," so dex is as good as anything else. The narrative identity will be enhanced by the fact that she can breathe water and that she gets the shape water cantrip.

 

[abirdcall]

It does, but it does strike me that people are talking past each other on that point, because as a newer player to the community I've mostly heard min-max being talked about as a negative in the TTRPG community, and in particular in D&D. Character optimisation is a better term perhaps but also seems ripe for confusion. It's a shame min-max is such a loaded term and everyone assignes a personal meaning to it.

Something more neutral would be good to have, to balance between 'making a character that functions well' and 'making a strong character' and 'making a ridiculously powerful character using the rules, which may or may not be considered poor show depending o nthe game' and 'abusing, bending or sneakily cheating the rules to create a god tier character to the deteriment of the game'.

The problem for me is when people are mechanic-centred with the goal to be the best at the strategy game.

This is opposed to being motivated by narrative.

I have a much better time playing with people who care about the story and their impact on it.

Having read tons of posts by 'optimizers' finding narrative justification for their builds and combos doesn't count. Their primary motivation is in opposition to mine.

I love strategy games I just think D&D makes a naughty word one.

I'd much rather sit down and play a competitive game with those folks than play D&D with them.

 

[abirdcall]

the typo made this question really confusing!

It doesn't enhance the narrative identity of their race, but it does serve to connect them to the setting, and is an example of using ASI for narrative effect rather than optimizing. The character is a water genasi and by default gets a +2 Con, +1Wis, none of which strikes me as being very "watery," so dex is as good as anything else. The narrative identity will be enhanced by the fact that she can breathe water and that she gets the shape water cantrip.

Yeah that is an unfortunate typo.

The floating just becomes part of the decision of where to place stats. It ceases to exist separately.

What I am getting at is that removing racial ASIs reduces the racial identities. It doesn't eliminate them entirely and I would love if they had more unique abilities rather than the ASIs that they have. But that is where we are so I would rather the ASIs than nothing.

 

[Malmuria]

Which goes back to what I've said many times, what am I paying for?

This is interesting. What are we paying for in an rpg? Personally, I value simplicity and succinct expression. I want to be able to print a page with a character sheet on one side, and all the rules one of my players need to know on the other side, and hand it to them. So my preferred 6e would give a choice of a few relatively powerful and highly thematic abilities for race, and put everything else into class.

fwiw, I think Basic dnd is perfect for classic fantasy as it is both simple and leans into archetype. One of the things that is confusing to me is that, if you want a game that emphasizes archetype, I can't imagine 5e as currently written working for you.

It seems like an idea that could still benefit those that want to portray races which lean toward certain classes culturally in the lore without statistically punishing PC off-branding come game time. Of course, it doesn’t account for how to make up for those races that exceed 3 initial ASIs (human, half-elf, etc.) and thus requires some extra work elsewhere. But I also think that’s where more emphasis on racial feat options to build out individual racial quirks can fill in for the losses. I find those aspects more character defining than being one of 10 strong or quick races anyway.

Any thoughts? Does this actually “do more” for you than just calling it a free +2/+1 with your racial choice?

For me, this would be perfect. Probably the only thing that would be better would be getting rid of chargen ASI all together and just increasing the standard array and point buy (rolling can stay as is).