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

[Scott Christian]

I would think such a system would operate a bit like pathfinder 2, where you select racial feats separate from your class (I haven't played that game and only looked through the srd a bit). Probably fewer, more powerful, more thematic options.

I was just about to say that.

 

[Scott Christian]

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question.

How does having evil human organizations not count as "complex real world angst"? What makes them immune to this effect?



Of course you don't fight the good guys. But you still encounter them. Unless that halfling village is full of evil cultists. Or the dwarven traders are secretly cannibals. You encounter the "good guys" all the time.

So, again, if you have all the dwarves being good people who are trying to help you, and all the hobgoblins being evil people trying to hurt you... why would anyone go looking for evil dwarves or good hobgoblins? You've made the distinction clear. A group of dwarves in a mine? Allies who are good. A group of hobgoblins in a mine? Enemies who are evil. It doesn't matter anything else... which is the problem that a lot of us have, that it starts to not matter anything else except that they are of the poperly labeled "good guy" or "bad guy" race.



To those of us who were actually playing the game? Yes, it did. Because it meant that they were correct that certain people are born evil and need to be destroyed via a "final solution". They were just wrong about who.

It took our group all of about a minutes to realize this after a player brought it up. That we were heading for a genocide solution. And we were "in the right" because the individuals we were genociding were an "evil race" who threatened our way of life. Exact same plan, exact same reason, we were just "correct". Which reinforces their message as being fundamentally correct.



Really? So what was the evil you were fighting against?

Murder? Real
Tyranny? Real
Genocide/Omnicide? Real
Thievery and covetousness? Real
War? Real

What evils did your players confront in the game that aren't real evils of our world?



Cool. So, Genasi have no type, and that's fine.

So why is it a problem to widen the type for others? Why is "I can't play against type" such a big concern if we have these races that don't have a type to begin with?



So, you want to take Dwarven wizards away from me, so that other people can feel cool by bucking the trend and playing a dwarven wizard?

We are adding. We are adding wizards to dwarves. This is exactly what you are saying people don't get upset about, and is exactly what we are doing. Why shouldn't we add wizards to dwarves? What's wrong with that?



I didn't realize my Genasi was indistinguishable from a human. We aren't homogenizing anything, We are adding archetypes to places where they haven't been existing. This should be a good thing, correct. We are taking nothing away. Nothing is being lost.

Every single one of these answers makes me think you don't separate fantasy violence from graphic/real world violence. They actually label it for motion pictures. Heck, they even have a label called cartoon violence.

So the next time you watch a film contrast the difference. This might help you understand MaxPerson's point of view.

By the way, I never agree with Max! )

 

[Chaosmancer]

It is, but in the realm of fantasy, historically? Avatar is a modern thing. Ask people what a dwarf is, they know, ask them what an elementally touched person is? No way its as tight a definition. If you disagree, fair, but no way I will believe 'Avatar' is tightly defined as Dwarf.

Being tightly defined isn't the point. In fact, being tightly defined is sort of the problem with dwarves. I've seen Space Elves, who are pretty much nothing like DnD elves, but they are still "space elves". I've only once or twice seen a "Space Dwarf" and usually that is because they are so "tightly defined" that they don't fit anywhere easily.

But my point wasn't that elementally aligned people are super tightly defined, my point was that they were popular and well known. This is a concept that is powerful and resonates with people, that we want to see in play... and they aren't super tightly defined, they aren't set up where they can only really fit in a handful of classes or roles, we don't need to "play them against type" because the type is broad enough that it covers most everything we actually want to do with them.

This is actually something else to consider. Have we ever considered that the desire to "play against type" is indicative of a problem? Not the people who do it for the mechanical challenge, but the idea that you don't want to play the same character. Think about it for a second, how many classes are "against type" for a dwarf?

Barbarian is borderline. Many dwarves using heavy armor and such makes barbarian sometimes a weird fit.

Bard? Against Type.
Druid? Against Type.
Monk? Against type.
Ranger? Against type.
Rogue? Against type.
Wizard? Against type.
Warlock? Against type.
Sorcerer Against type.

What isn't against type? Fighter, Cleric, Paladin.

Out of 12 classes... there are four that are not "against type" for a dwarf. Maybe that's a problem? Maybe they are so tightly and narrowly defined that they end up feeling a bit stifling.

Fair for sure. But thats why my immediate answer was 'fallen aasimar' unless I'm thinking of a different thread.

You might be thinking of a different thread, because your answer is exactly my point. People are saying that with the mechanical changes you can no longer play "against type" for Elves and Dwarves, because they will spread out and things like dwarven wizards will become common, and no longer "against type".

But, with the Aasimar, there is no mechanical weight to the "type" you described. The archetypes and stereotypes of the Aasimar and how you "play against type" have nothing to do with your stats or your class, they have to do with the story you are trying to tell. An Aasimar can be any class, and still be in "in type" or "against type" it has nothing to do with the mechanics at play.

Why can't that work for the dwarf? Why can't playing against type with a dwarf be based on the story you are telling, and not the mechanics you are using?

Fine. I don't associate humanity with druid, and I certainly don't put them in the 'nature attuned' camp, when in a fantasy setting. That isn't a Human trope, to me.

It may not be to you, but it certainly is a human trope in many, many stories. Not like, all of humanity, but the enclave of people living in tune with nature bit is pretty common. Also, humans are one of the few "fantasy races" who have entire worlds where they are the only ones that exist, so they end up taking up tropes in those worlds that otherwise might fall to the other races. Meaning that it doesn't cause an eyeblink to slot them into those tropes in other worlds.

 

[Chaosmancer]

In my experience humans are the exception.

So, humans are the exception, and everyone else has to be either fully good or fully evil, if they aren't you are bringing in "complex real world angst"?

Like say the complex real world angst of defining people as being fully good or fully evil based on where they come from and not their individuality? Seems like you have the angst either way, unless you simply choose to ignore it.

It seems you missed the part where I said that the good races are generally good when encountered, even though evil examples are out there.

Didn't miss it. You just keep waffling. When asked about why players don't encounter Good Hobgoblins, if they exist, you've given two answers. One is the real world angst, and then you gave this response just two posts ago

"No. I've just made virtually all hobgoblin encounters with evil hobgoblins. Even if I were to tell them that all the races have all alignments, they'd still primarily be encountering bad guys, because it's D&D. It's a game designed for lots of fights and good guys don't generally fight good guys."

So, I pointed out how silly it would be to consider that the party only encounters bad guys, they have to be encountering good guys too. The problem then is right back to where we started. It is especially bad if you have them encountering evil elves, dwarves and humans, because now we have races that could be good or evil, and races that are only evil. Oh sure, good ones exist in theory, but in practice every hobgoblin is evil.

So, either you have a situation where humans, elves, dwarves and halflings interact and live with each other, and there is the occassional bad elf or dwarf or human, but those races over there are evil and you will only encounter evil ones. Or, you have a situation where one group is always good, and the other is always evil. Not in theory, in theory they are more complex, but in practice no matter where or how you encounter that elf, they are a good guy. And no matter where or how you encounter the hobgoblin, they are the bad guy.

None of those things in the game was real.

So your games have never featured murder, tyranny, theft, or war? What do you guys do? What are the bad guys up to, just writing mean things in letters and mailing them to the king?


Or are you seriously trying to say that because it was a fake war, in a fake world, for a game, then it doesn't in anyway possible reference the reality that war exists in the real world? That somehow you have figured out how to play a game where a war happens, but none of the evils of war are even a discussion point to be had?

It doesn't matter. None of the game evils was ever in any way connected to any real world evil.

Then how do you know it was evil? How did you have a plot where someone was murdered, without in any way connecting that to the evils of murder and how it hurts people? This truly boggles me, like, how can you possibly do this?

Just because it happens in a fantasy world or in a story doesn't mean it doesn't reference the real world.

First, dwarven wizards are still against type. Second, did you miss that I thought it was cool that there was a dwarven wizard in 2e? That edition didn't allow them at all, and I still thought it was a good idea. Why would you ask something that is again the opposite of what I have been saying? Do you want to shut down this conversation, too?

So... if you are cool with Dwarven Wizards, and we are making it so people will play dwarven wizards... what's the problem? They are still against type according to you, so what horrible and terrible thing are we doing? What are we taking away?

Your ability to play a dwarven wizard who has a 14 INT? Nope, you can still do that. So what is the problem?

You are. If every race gets the same racial bonuses, they are basically one race with varied looks and some differing abilities. Just like, you know, real world humans as you've pointed out.

So, you honestly believe that a +1 strength is the only thing that makes a race different.

Because, by this very argument, if they all get the same racial bonuses, then what you are saying is that Orcs, Minotaurs, Half-Orcs, Goliaths and Ravenite Dragonborn are all the same race, but with varied looks and differing abilities. Because they all have the same racial bonus, +2 Strength, +1 Con.

And again, quoting your exact words from the post, so you can't turn around and say I'm misinterpreting you.

" If every race gets the same racial bonuses" -> +2 Strength, +1 Constitution are the same racial bonuses.
"they are basically one race with varied looks and some differing abilities." -> Therefore Orcs, Half-Orcs, Minotaurs, Goliaths and Ravenite Dragonborn are one race, with varied looks and differing abilities.

 

[Yaarel]

But you have seen a reworking of rules, constant debates, and a literal outcry over not getting an extra +1 because someone chose to play a race that wasn't as superior when attached to a specific class. The half-orc wizard, wood elf barbarian, and halfling fighter are all three classic examples. Even though those races offer you things that are unique and beneficial to any campaign. But that +1, it MUST be had. If they don't have it, then it is unfair, makes them feel as though their character isn't as effective, and it has even gone so far as to have players describe their character as worthless.

I dont have an opinion about what an "orc" archetype should or shouldnt be. Tolkien coined the term orc from an obscure Old English "orcneas". The D&D orc seems nonidentical with the Tolkien concept. A D&D orc can be whatever D&D wants one to be.

3e suggests the orc spellcasters are as powerful as the orc warrior leaders, who they often ambitiously rival. Since the martial concepts are high level and exceptionally powerful, this Cleric-like concept seems so too.

In any case, the orc is one of the concerning D&D races. The D&D traditions employ reallife memes from highly racist stereotypes about a primitive, "savage", brute, of a less-than-human Intelligence, whose "tribes" are a culture of "chiefs" and "chieftains". Illustrations often portray their complexion as identical to dark humans. I am uninterested in perpetuating this notion of a orc.

4e identified certain orcs with the reallife term "berserker", but fortunately 5e discontinued this misrepresentation of Norse heritage.



The halfling tradition tends to be a nonmagical Small human, much like a precocious child. This is one of the races that "offer you things that are unique and beneficial", yes, a Rogue, and only a Rogue. Halflings are subpar as Fighter, despite tradition often making them Fighters. They are subpar as spellcasters. Their mechanical design straightjackets the player to be a Rogue, and punishes the player who wants to explore a non-Rogue character concept. I am fond of the 4e halfling whose mechanics are better and whose culture interested me. In 5e, if I want a precocious human kid, I just do that.

I find the 5e halfling and the tradition generally to be way too human. It deserves serious rethinking. Maybe associate it with its gnomish fairy origin as a "hob", "hobbit", to make it less human. Otherwise, make "Hin" one of the human "cultures", like the ones that are in the Players Handbook. Some human groups tend to be little.

Halflings benefit from floating the ability improvements for the sheer breath of fresh air to not be a Rogue.



The wood elf is a grugach with a Strength score +2, and the grugach elf Barbarian is a part of the D&D tradition that merits working well in 5e too.



If orc, halfling, and wood elf are supposed to be the "classic examples" of why not to have floating ability score improvements, then I look at these same races with gladness that we now have floating ability score improvements.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Every single one of these answers makes me think you don't separate fantasy violence from graphic/real world violence. They actually label it for motion pictures. Heck, they even have a label called cartoon violence.

So the next time you watch a film contrast the difference. This might help you understand MaxPerson's point of view.

By the way, I never agree with Max! )

Have you ever cried during a movie? Any movie, for any reason? Why was that? Do you think it was because you couldn't tell the difference between the fantasy of the movie and the reality of the world?

I was reading a rather dark story last week. Fourth book in a fantasy series about a toy bear that came to life, and ended up ruling a kingdom with the little girl he had gone to rescue ending up as the soul of a battle-hardened knight haunting a doll's body. I say it is dark because despite the humor and general tone of the stories, and the fact that it is about a stuffed bear, it really doesn't pull its punches. For example, the girl who became a doll is suffering not just from depression but from suicidal thoughts. There are multiple scenes where she imagines the sounds of shattering porcelain from her just slamming her face against something until her head shatters. She is very much struggling with the trauma's and issues of being a mortal who became immortal in a body that wasn't her own.


Do you think that just because it is a fantastical situation that there are people who don't have suicidal thoughts after a tragedy permanently alters their body?

My mother was re-watching the Lethal Weapon franchise. Martin Riggs is a cop who is struggling with suicidal thoughts after the death of his wife and child. Do you think that just because it is in a movie, and is fantasy, that this never happens to anyone ever? That anyone effected by that story can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality?


Yes, obviously I can tell fantasy violence from real-world violence. I can enjoy watching a show where the characters struggle and fight and hurt each other in the pursuit of goals. But just because it is a fantasy doesn't mean I don't see the real-world parallels. I can watch a magical fighter struggle and fight against an abusive lover and recognize both that it is a fantasy and no one was really hurt, and also that there are people in a similar situation who are hurt by those acts every single day.

And no, despite having encountered more than one person who seemingly believes this, I will never understand how people can read or watch human tragedies unfolding and then shrug and say it doesn't affect them at any level, because it wasn't a real human tragedy. What is the point of storytelling if you can't feel an emotional connection to the story being told?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Have you ever cried during a movie? Any movie, for any reason? Why was that? Do you think it was because you couldn't tell the difference between the fantasy of the movie and the reality of the world?

Mufasa!

 

[the Jester]

But you can't do that. I'm sorry, you just can't. You cannot have a game about Good and Evil without getting into discussions of Good and Evil in the real world. You can minimize it as much as you want, you can try and ignore it, but in the end of the day, something is going to slip through and slam you with reality.

You really can.

 

[the Jester]

Why? Because it is just as easy to make a Genasi Rogue as it is a Genasi Barbarian? How is that a bad thing?

Because it means your choice of race is diluted from meaningful to cosmetic. If your race doesn't strongly influence your play, I think you might as well just replace it with a few lines of description. And that's fine, if that's the game you want to play- but I want a game where my nonhumans are noticeably different from humans, and each has an archetypical space they fill in the game. You're welcome to step outside of that, but it should be a thing where people notice it and go, "Huh, interesting character choice!" instead of "Oh, that's where your +2 to Dex came from".

That's not to even address the issue of "where are these dozens of new races from, what have they been doing for all of the world's history, where do they live, no, that place is full of goblins already" with new races. New races are the player-side option least likely to get into my game.

 

[the Jester]

Why? Born with a connection to the elements is a massively popular story trope. At least equal to dwarves.

I've played and run a ton of D&D over the decades, and since genasi were introduced in 2e, I have seen one genasi pc ever. Heck, I've never even had anyone else show interest in them.

Meanwhile, I have seen probably literally hundreds of dwarf pcs.