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

[Maxperson]

You said an elf without a +2 Dex is like an incomplete painting of the Mona Lisa. How is it a strawman to say then that if I had an elf with a +2 Cha and +1 Int that they are somehow not an elf. They are incomplete according to you, not a full and true elf unless I can get a bonus to dex instead of those other bonuses I chose.

Or is an incomplete elf still a full elf?

I told you that I'm not explaining it to you again. Go back and re-read my final explanation. You have come here to tell me that I said the literal opposite of what I actually said.

It wouldn't be bad. These fears you have about people not being able to portray the larger race "properly" are foundless.

And here you again attribute to me the opposite of what I said. Until you can demonstrate to me that you understand at least these two things that I have said, I see no point in wasting my time reading your response any further.

 

[abirdcall]

Ah, I see. I guess that's another example of whether or not one extrapolates the PC rules out to say something about the population at large. Even if floating ASIs were the default rule, and more players chose to play elven barbarians, I wouldn't conclude that elves as a group are more likely to be barbarians, and wouldn't populate my worlds with elven barbarians, and would ask the player of an elven barbarian to come up with a good background story.

Again, just a different approach.

(edit) however I will grant that choosing elven barbarian is less likely to be novel/original from the point of view of other players. It's no longer "against type" from a player perspective, even if it would surprising/unexpected/rare within the game world.

I'm not talking about the population at large in the world.

I'm talking about PCs.

 

[Umbran]

I mean, why make them a CR 10 monster to fight if they aren't going to be a CR 10 encounter?

I can think of two reasons:

1) Not everything is about fighting.
2) Synergy happens - the value of a monster alone is not the only measure of its value.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can think of two reasons:

1) Not everything is about fighting.
2) Synergy happens - the value of a monster alone is not the only measure of its value.

You think that was their reasoning? "Summer and Spring are fine on their own, but Winter will be just as effective with synergy, and combat isn't everything".

 

[the Jester]

Sure, races are species. Therefore it is perfectly coherent to say that Horses (elves) are faster and more perceptive but that they can never be stronger than a bear (goliaths) who are stronger and tougher.

I mean, it isn't like Arabian horses and Clydesdales are the same genetic species from a biological perspective. They can't even inter-breed right? And an Irish wolfhound isn't even close to the same genetic species as a golden retriever right?

That's a very different case. You're talking about real world examples of different breeds within a species. But in D&D, the situation is very different.

Unless you're suggesting that trolls, celestials, dragon, and fiends are all the same species as humans? Because all of those can breed with humans.

The notion that a species can only reproduce with other members of the same species* isn't even strictly true in the real world, and the notion of where one species ends and another begins can be pretty ambiguous. When you throw in fantasy rules for reproduction, which definitely don't follow the same rules as the real world as evidenced by half-dragons alone, I just don't think that argument sticks.

*(And that therefore the various pc races are all the same species, which seems to be the point you're making- please correct me if I am misunderstanding you!)

 

[Umbran]

You think that was their reasoning?

I don't pretend to be an internet mind-reader to know their reasoning. I am noting things that are true that might make the things CR seem less of an issue. In an encounter that isn't only about combat, or where this creature is mixed in with others, the performance may be up to snuff.

In the end, "This monster's CR is off," is hardly a disaster in any event. If you think it is overvalued, then... consider it to have a lower CR for your game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm not talking about the population at large in the world.

I'm talking about PCs.

Yeah, and like I said in my edit it's probably true that with floating ASIs there won't be as many surprising/oddball combos.

But...what is it exactly you are looking for when you say you want to be able to play "against type", if it's about PCs and not about traditional archetypes of the species at large?

If playing "against type" means a rarely seen race/class combination with a handicap, can't you just pick something nobody in your group has tried, make some non-optimized attribute choices, and come up with an improbable backstory?

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, and like I said in my edit it's probably true that with floating ASIs there won't be as many surprising/oddball combos.

But...what is it exactly you are looking for when you say you want to be able to play "against type", if it's about PCs and not about traditional archetypes of the species at large?

If playing "against type" means a rarely seen race/class combination with a handicap, can't you just pick something nobody in your group has tried, make some non-optimized attribute choices, and come up with an improbable backstory?

"Type" is just what a race is best at or known for. Dwarves are known for being dour, axe/hammer wielding ale drinkers. Often clerics and fighters. And also rarely being wizards. Being a dwarven wizard is against type. Being a jolly non-drinker is against type.

Against type isn't just an improbable backstory. There also has to be a type that it goes against.

 

[Bill Zebub]

"Type" is just what a race is best at or known for. Dwarves are known for being dour, axe/hammer wielding ale drinkers. Often clerics and fighters. And also rarely being wizards. Being a dwarven wizard is against type. Being a jolly non-drinker is against type.

Against type isn't just an improbable backstory. There also has to be a type that it goes against.

Huh. I listed three things (something nobody in the group has tried, sub-optimal scores, improbable backstory) so why would you say it isn't "just an improbable backstory"?

At the same time, what I wrote isn't what I would call "against type", either, but it was in response to somebody saying that (for them) it's not against the type of the whole species, but only that of PCs. I was taking a stab at what "against type compared to other PCs" might mean. But I'll admit I find the notion counter-intuitive.

 

[Maxperson]

Huh. I listed three things (something nobody in the group has tried, sub-optimal scores, improbable backstory) so why would you say it isn't "just an improbable backstory"?

At the same time, what I wrote isn't what I would call "against type", either, but it was in response to somebody saying that (for them) it's not against the type of the whole species, but only that of PCs. I was taking a stab at what "against type compared to other PCs" might mean. But I'll admit I find the notion counter-intuitive.

It's not any of those other things as well. Again, in order for something to be against type, there must be a type to begin with. What you suggest would work to make interesting characters, but they are not sufficient by themselves to create an against type character.