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

[Crimson Longinus]

I wouldn't say it is "needed" as in "my character is unplayable without it" but I would certainly say it is the baseline that the game pushes us towards. Everything in the character creation and class rules, and an observation on the underlining math of the system makes it very clear that 5e was designed expecting you have a 16 in your primary score.

OK. Let's accept that. Change point buy so that everyone can buy 16, but keep the racial ASIs. Is this fine or is 18 not the new baseline?

And if if that two point difference is never acceptable, why even have stat generation? Just say every class has 14+proficiency bonus in their mains stat. No customisation allowed, no levelling ASIs needed, so you can take feats.

 

[crusaderbard]

It's time for me to eat some crow. I've been against separating ability score increases from race in D&D for some time now. My main opposition to removing it was because I felt as though it made choosing what race to play matter even less than it matters now.* But my character died tonight during the inaugural session for our new campaign and it's time to roll up a new character. After discussing it a bit with my group, I decided to make a the nephew of our half-elf druid and I will be a Circle of the Spores druid. One of my goals of this campaign is to play things I've never played before and that includes races. I mostly make humans so in the spirit of newness I decided to make an elf. Elves get that great Dexterity bonus but I wanted a Wisdom bonus, dammit! I had the option to use the Tasha rules but I just made a regular elf and took my +2 Dexterity bonus.

But you know what? All those who argued that getting rid of ASI were right. It allows you to make the character you want to make and that's always a good thing. You win. I am a reformed man.

*I know some of you will tell me in your campaigns it makes a difference whether your character is an elf or dwarf. I believe you. But in my experience it usually doesn't matter much

It's time for me to eat some crow. I've been against separating ability score increases from race in D&D for some time now. My main opposition to removing it was because I felt as though it made choosing what race to play matter even less than it matters now.* But my character died tonight during the inaugural session for our new campaign and it's time to roll up a new character. After discussing it a bit with my group, I decided to make a the nephew of our half-elf druid and I will be a Circle of the Spores druid. One of my goals of this campaign is to play things I've never played before and that includes races. I mostly make humans so in the spirit of newness I decided to make an elf. Elves get that great Dexterity bonus but I wanted a Wisdom bonus, dammit! I had the option to use the Tasha rules but I just made a regular elf and took my +2 Dexterity bonus.

But you know what? All those who argued that getting rid of ASI were right. It allows you to make the character you want to make and that's always a good thing. You win. I am a reformed man.

*I know some of you will tell me in your campaigns it makes a difference whether your character is an elf or dwarf. I believe you. But in my experience it usually doesn't matter much.

So wait.. when gandalf reassured the dwarves in the hobbit by saying that "Hobbits are very light on their feet", he was being racist? I dunno I just don't get it...

 

[Bill Zebub]

OK. Let's accept that. Change point buy so that everyone can buy 16, but keep the racial ASIs. Is this fine or is 18 not the new baseline?

And if if that two point difference is never acceptable, why even have stat generation? Just say every class has 14+proficiency bonus in their mains stat. No customisation allowed, no levelling ASIs needed, so you can take feats.

I don't think it's about "baseline" or "normal". It's about having two choices and asking "What do I get for each choice?"

If one choice gives you a race you think would be fun roleplaying, plus a few abilities, and a +2 in a dump stat, and the other choice gives you a race you're not as excited to play, plus a fiew abilities, and a +2 in your primary stat, I don't think the final number is that relevant: people will tend to take the latter choice.

* well, more than two choices, but let's simplify the problem for illustration purposes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think it's about "baseline" or "normal". It's about having two choices and asking "What do I get for each choice?"

But it absolutely is. It is not about 16, 17, or 18, it is about getting the best possible score. That's what you're saying. If it is possible to take a better score, people do so. So literally only logical solution to this is that everyone just has the same number, no difference can exist.

If one choice gives you a race you think would be fun roleplaying, plus a few abilities, and a +2 in a dump stat, and the other choice gives you a race you're not as excited to play, plus a fiew abilities, and a +2 in your primary stat, I don't think the final number is that relevant: people will tend to take the latter choice.

Why? I mean, sure, people are free to make such a choice, but to me it seems utterly absurd though. This is a roleplaying game not a competitive wargame.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But it absolutely is. It is not about 16, 17, or 18, it is about getting the best possible score. That's what you're saying. If it is possible to take a better score, people do so. So literally only logical solution to this is that everyone just has the same number, no difference can exist.

I've actually been thinking about this a lot over dinner. I agree with the first part, but not your conclusion. It is all about getting the best possible score, but I think that's only because the game doesn't offer anything else sufficiently compelling to trade it for. I mean, at higher levels people are sometimes willing to trade the higher score for a feat, but we don't know what people are willing to do at 1st level because the only way to get a feat (vHuman) also lets you get a 16.

Which made me think of a possible compromise solution. (I mean, not that any of us have any influence over D&D's design, but let's pretend it's like fantasy football, but....fantasy game designer.)

What if races got a +1 ASI, sub-races got an additional +1, and then there's an additional floating +1 that can go anywhere, including overlapping one of the first two. So fans of racial ASIs for historical/traditional/thematic reasons would still have that, and the only races that could start with a 17 would be those traditional archetypes, but anybody, with any race/class combination, could start with a 16 in their primary stat.

I would still prefer just a floating +2/+1 for simplicity, but I would also be ok with this +1/+1/+1 solution.

Why? I mean, sure, people are free to make such a choice, but to me it seems utterly absurd though. This is a roleplaying game not a competitive wargame.

It's not a competitive wargame, but that doesn't mean people don't get satisfaction from mechanical effectiveness. And although the "why" might be an interesting question to explore, the reality is that it's what a lot of people do (based on D&DBeyond data.)

I mean, I am equally boggled by some of the practices espoused in the name of roleplaying. But, hey, it's what some people do. And I know that trying to rank playstyles in order of validity, and to claim that one is better than another, is not really a useful or productive way to resolve the kinds of questions we're talking about in this thread.

 

[abirdcall]

But it absolutely is. It is not about 16, 17, or 18, it is about getting the best possible score. That's what you're saying. If it is possible to take a better score, people do so. So literally only logical solution to this is that everyone just has the same number, no difference can exist.


Why? I mean, sure, people are free to make such a choice, but to me it seems utterly absurd though. This is a roleplaying game not a competitive wargame.

This might be where differences of view point come in.

I think the vast majority of D&D players don't care about trying to be competitive. They will generally make choices that the game leads them to but aren't afraid to do something just because it is fun.

I have played competitive games at high levels and I have found value in that. I would never want to try to be competitive with D&D. It is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It just isn't designed well for that kind of experience.

 

[Umbran]

Yes it does. As you are completely wrong below.

If you agree your post is wrong to a nearly insulting degree, maybe you should apologize then. Or maybe read more closely before you start agreeing by saying "yes it does"

Mod Note:
Hey, folks.

Can either of you honestly claim that anything the other person says is going to change their stance? Because, it sure doesn't look like it form out here. And, then, we have to consider what the point is of allowing you to fill the place with aggression and acrimony.

Maybe you two could, you know, tone it down, walk away, or something, before it gets actionable, hm?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't think people generally assume that D&D stats work in such linear and mathematically coherent fashion. They work in some vague 'bigger is better' scale. Like most people don't really assume that in the fiction frost giant is just a bit more than twice as strong than an average human. That would be insane. And like those 13 points between average and human and a frost giant represent far larger difference in fiction than mere percents would indicate, so do those two points between a goliath and halfling.

And I have really wanted to avoid the gender difference discussion, but my logic is reverse to yours: as the game doesn't measure difference between genders but measures (without Tasha) a difference between different species, any difference that is represented by ASIs is in the setting a larger difference than exist between the human sexes.

The people might not assume that, but the game itself certainly does. Which also conflicts with your idea that the difference between species is larger than the percentages would suggest, because we can show the linear progression of strength in lbs lifted.

And it may be insane at times, but it is the game world presented by the rules. No matter how crazy we find it that a Tiny spider can easily drag 60 lbs., those are the rules we are given for the "reality" of the game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

OK. Let's accept that. Change point buy so that everyone can buy 16, but keep the racial ASIs. Is this fine or is 18 not the new baseline?

And if if that two point difference is never acceptable, why even have stat generation? Just say every class has 14+proficiency bonus in their mains stat. No customisation allowed, no levelling ASIs needed, so you can take feats.

It would be better, but are we just moving the expected baseline up? Do we change the entire game to reflect this alteration? Are all the ACs and DCs increasing for the players now?

And why is it so hard to accept a charismatic elf with a +2 Cha or an intelligent dwarf with a +2 Int? Why must everything be hard-coded and immutable?

 

[Malmuria]

This might be where differences of view point come in.

I think the vast majority of D&D players don't care about trying to be competitive. They will generally make choices that the game leads them to but aren't afraid to do something just because it is fun.

I have played competitive games at high levels and I have found value in that. I would never want to try to be competitive with D&D. It is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It just isn't designed well for that kind of experience.

It's hard to make a generalization about what players want. I'm not even sure wanting to optimize in one way or another is about being competitive, but maybe the feeling of having a character who is heroic, and the numbers on the sheet, for whatever reason, make some people feel that way. You could just roll 3d6 for each stat, but maybe people don't like having penalties to any of their stats.