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

[Maxperson]

Yeah, sure. I acknowledge that. I like my characters to be effective. A level 1 fighter with 16 strength does around 20-25% more damage, on average, than a fighter with 15 strength. Combined with other optimization (power-gamey) choices, these things all add up. Plus I just get satisfaction from knowing that my character is optimized, regardless if the difference is apparent at the table.

+1 damage and hitting 5% more often doesn't seem like it equates to 20-25% more damage.

 

[Lyxen]

Ignoring my counter arguments and just repeating that it's power gaming isn't going to make simple optimization into power gaming, no matter how many times you want to repeat it.

Just as denying it will not change the fact that they are exactly the same thing, just not to the same scale.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This has largely been the argument of people pro-floating ASIs for a few pages now as well.

Your takes here seem to be targeting hypothetical stances rather than the ones that have been given here (mostly cordially I think).

Yes. I don't optimize because I don't care at all about those more interesting choices, it's not a binary thing. I have played rogues where I use daggers instead of short swords because...well, daggers! I sometimes choose sub-optimal feats because they are fun.

But, when making a new character, the difference between the races aren't sufficiently compelling for me to give up the +1 on all my major dice rolls. And it seems like a lot of other people end up making the same choice.

 

[Maxperson]

This has largely been the argument of people pro-floating ASIs for a few pages now as well.

Your takes here seem to be targeting hypothetical stances rather than the ones that have been given here (mostly cordially I think).

It's both, really. Most of the arguments boil down to "It allows us to create more interesting characters since any race to get the extra DPR for whatever class we choose."

 

[Maxperson]

Just as denying it will not change the fact that they are exactly the same thing, just not to the same scale.

So you do agree that chimps are the exact same as humans and water is the exact same as hydrochloric acid. Chimps are to humans and water is to hydrochloric acid what optimizing is to power gaming.

 

[Bill Zebub]

+1 damage and hitting 5% more often doesn't seem like it equates to 20-25% more damage.

I have zero interest in starting an argument with you but maybe somebody else will explain it.

 

[Lyxen]

Yeah, sure. I acknowledge that. I like my characters to be effective. A level 1 fighter with 16 strength does around 20-25% more damage, on average, than a fighter with 15 strength. Combined with other optimization (power-gamey) choices, these things all add up. Plus I just get satisfaction from knowing that my character is optimized, regardless if the difference is apparent at the table.

Good for you if this is what you enjoy and it does not create problems at the table. As I've said to each their own, the game can be enjoyed in many different ways so as long as it's fun, I've got nothing to say but kudos, especially since you have the honesty to recognise it.

Well I guess I'm still not understanding. I think the issue with orcs and drow is real, complex, and subtle, and people who say "orcs aren't black people" are REALLY not understanding the issue.

But, at least for me, the racial ASI issue is 100% about a totally unnecessary "finger on the scale" that pushes people toward traditional archetypes. It has nothing to do with the orc and drow thing. But from your earlier post it sounded like maybe it is, for you.

It certainly is not for me, but it is for other people, which, as I've said, makes things more difficult to discuss in certain circles.

 

[Malmuria]

At our tables, we only use racial ASIs because it's a fantasy game and we know that not all fantasy races are and should be equal, for one, and because it's part of the fantasy tropes to have clever gnomes and strong half-orcs (or whatever attributes we use for whatever races). And even the half-orc wizard can one day be more clever than most elves and show them up if it's what his story is about, so how is that a problem ? And in any case, PCs and NPCs don't have scores tattooed on their foreheads.

If people want to do differently at their tables, perfect, the option is there, and everyone is entitled to whatever they want in their game, I'm not judging.

Ok so if we just take the game design part of this, it would seem that one big advantage of racial ASI is encourage particular race-class combinations that emphasize certain themes and tropes. That is, a gnome wizard feels more gnome-y, an halfling rogue feels more halfling-y, etc. The game provides an incentive for leaning into those archetypes via racial ASI, and makes it so that characters that don't take this incentive are playing "against type" in an interesting way.

In sum, a large reason to include racial ASI is precisely so that players pick up on this incentive, i.e. optimize or in your terms powergame. So I think its odd to be in favor of racial ASI as part of the base game, but against the reason that it's there, i.e. to encourage classic race/class combinations.

On the contrary, playgroups like yours that are familiar with the classic archetypes would probably continue to create characters in that mold even without built-in racial ASI.

 

[Maxperson]

I have zero interest in starting an argument with you but maybe somebody else will explain it.

All it takes is showing the math.

 

[Malmuria]

+1 damage and hitting 5% more often doesn't seem like it equates to 20-25% more damage.

I think because you add your Str bonus to the damage dice? so a +1 on a 1d10 would be +10%, on a d8 12.5%, d6 16.5%. Then I guess you can factor in the fact that you are hitting on 5% more attacks.