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

[Chaosmancer]

Because so many races already get darkvision we should just give everyone darkvision. Several races also have powerful build, perhaps that should be given to everyone too?

No, but if I said "hey, here is a feat to give you darkvision" would it really make sense to say "But darkvision is super impactful and rare, and if everyone got it then your wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an elf and human!"

When... the majority of races I think get darkvision?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Serious question:
Why not just let players pick ability scores for their characters?

For example, if player #1 wants to have a 20 dex and 20 strength and 18 charisma, why not just let them? If player #2 wants to have a 20 intelligence but an 8 strength, 6 dex, and 10 con, why not just let them?

I get you might need to not let this happen for the 12 or 14 year old players out there that will always put 20 in everything, but why not let mature players just pick their attribute scores?

Sure, go ahead, most people like the randomization element though.

 

[Yaarel]

Darkvision makes an excellent cantrip.

If my human has to choose between Darkvision, Mage Hand, and certain other cantrips, it is a tough choice. Probably, Darkvision is slightly better than Light and Dancing Lights cantrips, because it is stealth-friendly, but not much better.

 

[Chaosmancer]

To be fair, it's not only the player characters that use the +2 ability modifier to Dexterity as it's also reflected in monster stat blocks. The Monster Manual depicts drow as having a 14-15 Dex.

Which A) is a +4 from the average, not a +2 and B) is a terribly imprecise measure of a racial average.

I did this the last time the conversation came up, but let us look at the Lizardfolk. In Volo's we are told the Lizardfolk have +2 Con and +1 Wisdom.

The Lizardfolk Commoner statblock from Ghosts of Saltmarch has a 15 strength, 12 con and 12 wisdom. (along with a 7 INT and 7 CHA) making them a strength based race. With minor bonuses to con and wisdom.

And the MM Lizardfolk is nearly identical except for a 13 Con.

So, why are they a con and wisdom race when strength is their defining feature in nearly every single Monster Entry? (Only the Subchief with their 14 strength has a stat higher than their strength score, which is their 16 Wis for their druidic magic. And it is still their second highest score)

So, looking to the MM is only vaguely accurate for what the race "should" be.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So far, 5e imposed Dexterity on elf, even when inappropriate.

At least, the winter eladrin elf is nondexterous.

Hopefully, the elf too will be part of the wider diversification of races, going forward. So we can see more examples of superhuman Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom, who are highly magical full casters.

Honestly the Winter Eladrin is just... pathetic. I'm still not convinced that they aren't a severe typo, with how much weaker they are compared to every other eladrin.

 

[mrpopstar]

Which A) is a +4 from the average, not a +2 and B) is a terribly imprecise measure of a racial average.

I did this the last time the conversation came up, but let us look at the Lizardfolk. In Volo's we are told the Lizardfolk have +2 Con and +1 Wisdom.

The Lizardfolk Commoner statblock from Ghosts of Saltmarch has a 15 strength, 12 con and 12 wisdom. (along with a 7 INT and 7 CHA) making them a strength based race. With minor bonuses to con and wisdom.

And the MM Lizardfolk is nearly identical except for a 13 Con.

So, why are they a con and wisdom race when strength is their defining feature in nearly every single Monster Entry? (Only the Subchief with their 14 strength has a stat higher than their strength score, which is their 16 Wis for their druidic magic. And it is still their second highest score)

So, looking to the MM is only vaguely accurate for what the race "should" be.

Ok. Well, the Monster Manual vaguely depicts elves as being particularly dextrous. Just putting it out there.

 

[Bill Zebub]

To be fair, it's not only the player characters that use the +2 ability modifier to Dexterity as it's also reflected in monster stat blocks. The Monster Manual depicts drow as having a 14-15 Dex.

This is why I don't see PC creation rules reflecting the species as a whole.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The thing is, the thing that made them non-standard was the ASIs. Now those are gone and there will be a new norm of character creation and I think it will be worse.

Can you elaborate on (the bold part of) this comment? I don't understand what you mean.

 

[Malmuria]

Can you elaborate on (the bold part of) this comment? I don't understand what you mean.

I think the meaning is that a default asi defines an archetype, and you need this in order for anyone to play against type.

except I think a lot of other things go into archetype, mostly things we bring to the table from other media. Even within the game, racial asi is not very meaningful in this regard unless you know the rules and interpret them as worldbuilding

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think the meaning is that a default asi defines an archetype, and you need this in order for anyone to play against type.

except I think a lot of other things go into archetype, mostly things we bring to the table from other media. Even within the game, racial asi is not very meaningful in this regard unless you know the rules and interpret them as worldbuilding

Yes, I think that's key.

I mean, it's easy to create two sets of attributes, one for an elf and one for a dwarf (or whatever), in which you don't put the ASI into the highest score, and even experts in the game would not be able to tell you which is which. And that's if you're using Point Buy or Standard Array: if you're rolling for scores then it's possible you couldn't tell the difference even if you did put the ASI in the highest score. (Except for the fact that somehow nobody ever seems to roll worse than at least one 17...)

Now, if the folks at D&DBeyond release their data you would be able to see a difference in attribute distributions between fixed ASIs and floating ASIs. But it's really vanishingly improbable that the statistical difference would be discernible to any one person based on their experience at the table. So, as you say, it must be the knowledge of how the rules would impact worldbuilding, and not anything visible at the table, that some people find troubling.

Which is valid. I mean, I don't see things that way, and don't share the concern, but I don't expect everybody to share my concerns about the game, either. I hate anything that feels like technology/steampunk/engineering in my fantasy worlds, and feel like it just increases year by year, and wish Wizards wouldn't keep going that way. But, alas, I guess I'm in the minority. (Even if the majority is WRONG.)