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

[Yaarel]

For some reason, the majority of players cannot seem to disassociate that extra +1 with a feeling their character is a lot weaker than someone with the bonus.

The reason is flavor.

The emotional response to being the "best" (+2) at an ability, or the "worst" (+0), is deeper than the mathematical statistic.

In a game where narrative tone is a priority, this emotional response is valid.



At the same time, even for mathematicians who are calculating the most optimal build, every point matters. Optimizers attach extraordinary importance to the +2 of a race ability score improvement as a starting point for the accumulation of other bonus points.



The reason the +2 strongly associates with being stronger, is both favor and mechanics.

It matters.

Obviously many reallife players care strongly about this +2.

 

[Yaarel]

I was thinking about this, and I wondered about offering multiple feats to choose from, some tied to different scores. Because, as Yaarel pointed out, Charisma should be a big deal to elves, so I could see some charisma abilities as well making sense.

Of course, I'm also starting to see that this would be a BEAR to design, because you'd essentiallly need nearly a thousand feats to cover all the races currently in the game, and making that many unique, powerful, and interesting abilities is incredibly difficult.

Some backgrounds are general, shared by many cultures, like Farmer. Some backgrounds are specific, unique to one culture.

Similarly, some race feats are general, shared by many races, perhaps like powerful build, natural armor, magic resistance, flight, luck, or so on. Some backgrounds are specific, unique to one subrace, perhaps like enhancing gem dragon breath.

If all feats together are like a deck of cards, each race is dealt a hand. A player picks a card from the hand. Mainly, the setting determines which cards go into a hand.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

One big issue with ability scores in general is how utterly useless certain scores are for certain classes, yet they are all priced the same. And this ties to species but also to character versatility in general. Many fantasy species definitely are thematically tied to certain competences, elves are dexterous, goliaths are strong etc. However in the game it rarely makes sense to lean into those competences unless you're playing a class that already would do so. Imagine a goliath wizard. A huge bloke who is enormously strong, also a decent wizard. High strength, high int. Sounds, cool right? This is what a goliath wizard should be like. So a wizard with strength 18. How useful would that be? I mean sure, it is definitely better than the usual strength 8, but worth all the points and resources it takes to get it there? Not in million years. For a wizard having high strength is a minor perk that would perhaps be handy sometimes. Probably about worth the same as knowing one extra spell or something like that. And this applies to other concepts too, not just ones informed by the species; a fighter who is an intelligent warrior-scholar, a barbarian who is a charismatic leader etc.

I have seen many times people suggest tying ASIs to the class. In effect this would make the class' main abilities cheaper to get. But I actually feel that we should (somehow) do the exact opposite! The class' main abilities should be more expensive to get! Think about it! If you were playing a wizard, how many points of strength would you need to get to even consider trading a point of int for them? Or as a fighter, how many points of int or charisma you should get before you considered trading a point of dex or strength for them?

 

[Yaarel]

The design space for a race is neutrals (creature type, size, abilities, language), trait, and feat.

For the sake of simplifying mechanics, and easing player choices, the trait should be exactly the same thing as half of a feat. In other words, many feats grant an ability score improvement +1 and one trait.

Thus, a race can consist of a feat and a trait, or three traits (players choice).

Regarding Tashas Custom Lineage, the trait is currently darkvision or an extra good proficiency (like Perception), but needs to be twice as beefy to equal half of a feat.

1 feat = 2 traits



When a player selects a feat and a trait from a race assemblage, the choice of race will feel substantial. Combining at least two choices will help the character concept feel distinctive, while also exemplifying the possibilities that the race is famous for.



While leveling, gaining an extra free trait at level 2, a feat at level 10, and an epic boon at level 18 that is pertinent to the race, seems balanced mechanically.

 

[Yaarel]

One big issue with ability scores in general is how utterly useless certain scores are for certain classes, yet they are all priced the same. And this ties to species but also to character versatility in general. Many fantasy species definitely are thematically tied to certain competences, elves are dexterous, goliaths are strong etc. However in the game it rarely makes sense to lean into those competences unless you're playing a class that already would do so. Imagine a goliath wizard. A huge bloke who is enormously strong, also a decent wizard. High strength, high int. Sounds, cool right? This is what a goliath wizard should be like. So a wizard with strength 18. How useful would that be? I mean sure, it is definitely better than the usual strength 8, but worth all the points and resources it takes to get it there? Not in million years. For a wizard having high strength is a minor perk that would perhaps be handy sometimes. Probably about worth same as knowing one extra spell or something like that. And this applies to other concepts too, not just ones informed by the species; a fighter who is an intelligent warrior-scholar, a barbarian who is a charismatic leader etc.

I have seen many times people suggest tying ASIs to the class. In effect this would make the class' main abilities cheaper to get. But I actually feel that we should (somehow) do the exact opposite! The class' main abilities should be more expensive to get! Think about it! If you were playing a wizard, how many points of strength would you need to get to even consider trading a point of int for them? Or as a fighter, how many points of int or charisma you should get before you considered trading a point of dex or strength for them?

Here the problem is the six abilities themselves.

If the abilities consolidate more usefully, then there are no dump abilities.

Strength (hit points)
Dexterity (mobility)
Intelligence (Perception)
Charisma (will)

The four abilities make strong Wizards and intelligent Fighters excellent choices.

 

[Maxperson]

This seems clear. Very clear. And logical. I get how someone doesn't want the bonus and just wants the racial feats, but that does seem a bit illogical.

That said, I think it is hard from a balance perspective. Elves are described as so great, at so many things, that it makes it difficult for them to be balanced.

I think that's more from the fact that dex is the god stat. On the other hand, if there were cool str, con, int, wis and cha abilities for those races that had bonuses there, that could make up the difference.

 

[Maxperson]

Then you could say it is non-sensical for elves to have access to Heavy Armor Mastery, Great Weapon Master, Durable, Tough, Grappler. Inspiring Leader, Polearm Master, Savage Attacker, Crusher or Tavern Brawler. After all, those abilities are based in Strength, Constitution and Charisma and elves don't get a +2 to any of those scores.

Yes. If they got access to those as racial abilities it would be nonsensical. Luckily, they don't and only have the same LEARNED access that everyone else does, so it makes perfect sense.

Except, they don't. That's not what stats do. Or racial abilities. These things are not tied directly together like you seem to think.

They have a connection. Dex and dex abilities refer to one another. You don't get to have it both ways. Either it works that way like you've been arguing or it does.

I understand the difference between what you said and what I heard... which is basically that you didn't want to commit to your idea, so you used a single word to indicate that they weren't completely identical... which is kind of obvious considering that saying 3 ft tall dragon people and 9 foot tall elephant people are the same is nonsense, no matter what bonuses they get to their imaginary numbers.

If the bold is what you think, then you didn't understand. It had nothing to do with commitment.

 

[Maxperson]

And when I'm playing Sid Meyer's Civilization then I care about the entire group of people, when I play about DnD I care about my individual PC.

My PCs care about their races and belong to them, and since I'm the roleplaying that, I care about those things as well.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course, I'm also starting to see that this would be a BEAR to design, because you'd essentiallly need nearly a thousand feats to cover all the races currently in the game, and making that many unique, powerful, and interesting abilities is incredibly difficult.

Yep. They would have to share dex abilities among the dex races, cha abilities with the cha races, etc. It would create even more homogeneity.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This is spot on. There will always be synergy, be it ASIs, racial feats, backgrounds, etc. The primary difference is one gives a bonus (+1) in combat. And, no matter how many times it is pointed out that the +1 isn't everything - it becomes everything. For some reason, the majority of players cannot seem to disassociate that extra +1 with a feeling their character is a lot weaker than someone with the bonus.

As I said earlier in this thread, I don't think the magnitude of the +1 bonus helps this discussion. Our inability to agree on its impact renders it pointless. Each side wants to emphasize that impact in the context of their own needs, and minimize its impact in the context of the other side's argument.

Clearly a lot of people only choose a race that gives them a +2 in their primary stat (as shown by D&DBeyond data), and clearly there are people who feel that racial ASIs are absolutely necessary to maintain racial flavor.