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

I dont think its an exaggeration at all, when a game, or fiction, or whatever, has a means to create ties across the various parts that make it (rules, lore, world building, whatever) those things should be leaned into.

The alternative is something I saw the other day that I have laughed about for a few days.

View attachment 142573

I can imagine an Eberron fan looking at this and thinking "Look at this, you cant say which is which!" while I say to myself "Look at this, you cant say which is which!" I'm sure you can imagine if I think its a positive or negative.

Removal of racial ASI, is a decrease, no matter how slight, in the amount of tradition and corresponding flavour, one has in a game or setting. I dont want that to decrease at all.

Um... as an Eberron fan you are completely missing the point of the meme and therefore showing the strength of that meme.

I can tell you exactly which is which. The Orc is from an ancient druidic culture dedicated to preserving the world from nameless horrors (well, named horrors, it is the Xoriat). The Elf is a Valenar elf and is a roving marauder looking for a fight. You can tell because they have the double-bladed scimitar and aren't wearing a death mask or any other sign of being an Aerenal elf.

The joke being that if you weren't in Eberron, the answer is clearly reversed, because orcs are ALWAYS the mararuders looking for a fight, while the elves are ALWAYS goodly protectors of the world. But in Eberron your preconceptions aren't neccesarily correct, things are more complicated than that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I ironically agree that the race ability score improvents has defined what a race "means". The reductionist tradition has reduced each race to almost nothing except an ability score improvement.

That may be why I usually go with the 16 instead of the colorful race: race just doesn't mean that much to me. I would be more inclined to choose other races if the differences were more impactful.

Imagine if the actual rules for how the various races engaged in combat and spellcasting varied? (Yes, it would be really hard to do for more than a couple of races.)
 

Um... as an Eberron fan you are completely missing the point of the meme and therefore showing the strength of that meme.

I can tell you exactly which is which. The Orc is from an ancient druidic culture dedicated to preserving the world from nameless horrors (well, named horrors, it is the Xoriat). The Elf is a Valenar elf and is a roving marauder looking for a fight. You can tell because they have the double-bladed scimitar and aren't wearing a death mask or any other sign of being an Aerenal elf.

The joke being that if you weren't in Eberron, the answer is clearly reversed, because orcs are ALWAYS the mararuders looking for a fight, while the elves are ALWAYS goodly protectors of the world. But in Eberron your preconceptions aren't neccesarily correct, things are more complicated than that.
Well thanks for the explanation. So Eberron subverts the tropes.
 

But that is just something you arbitrarily made up and not a real thing.

No it is based in multiple examinations of the game, the stat arrays and the expected gameplay loop.

But I guess you would be fine with my houserules where everyone can get 16, but some species can get 18 in certain scores.

As long as you didn't change anything else, but then you are simply recreating the problem for later, because now you are still saying that certain races have to be the best at certain classes, based only on their +2 bonus to a score that they are going to lose in a few levels.
 

Again, with an assumption that 16 is the minimum. Which it is not. Its 15.

That is the baseline, upon which racial modifiers are then applied.

The game does not say Dwarves cannot be Bards, or that Tieflings cannot be fighters. 'Supposed' to be, is not a thing.

There are Attributes, Races, and Classes. The game was designed with archetypes in mind, but unlike prior editions, you are not explicitly forced to adhere to any combination Wizards deems acceptable. Feel free to roll that Orc wizard with the -2 Int, the game allows for it as it was designed to allow for it.

I'm not saying they are forcing you to follow the archetypes, but they are certainly encouraging you to and don't expect you to play against type.

Seriously, do you expect every single player who sits at your table to play against type? Because that is the argument that allows for 15 to be the baseline, that every player who sits down is playing against type and no one is pursuing the archetypes. Then your baseline is that no one is archetypical and therefore they have 15's

The examples in the books and in the pre-gen characters from Phandalin? All of them follow the archetypes. That was the expectation. Only, people don't want to only play the same archetypes. Now, it isn't broken and your character isn't useless if you have a 15, but they certainly are below the expectation, because the expectation is that you are playing an archetypal character.
 


I'm not saying they are forcing you to follow the archetypes, but they are certainly encouraging you to and don't expect you to play against type.

They should be encouraging it, thats the point of archetypes, and what allows for 'playing against'.

Seriously, do you expect every single player who sits at your table to play against type? Because that is the argument that allows for 15 to be the baseline, that every player who sits down is playing against type and no one is pursuing the archetypes. Then your baseline is that no one is archetypical and therefore they have 15's

No. 15 is the baseline, because its what one has prior to ASI being applied, if one chooses to synergize with those modifiers. 15 + the modifier is what amplifies the tropes/archetypes.

The examples in the books and in the pre-gen characters from Phandalin? All of them follow the archetypes. That was the expectation. Only, people don't want to only play the same archetypes. Now, it isn't broken and your character isn't useless if you have a 15, but they certainly are below the expectation, because the expectation is that you are playing an archetypal character.

People dont have to play to the archetype, but they shouldnt expect to be as initially powerful as the archetypes which WotC designed the game to reinforce.
 

I ironically agree that the race ability score improvent has defined what a race "means". The reductionist tradition has reduced each race to almost nothing except an ability score improvement.

D&D 1e defined a "race" by means of a selection of ability modifiers and a prohibition against certain classes that the race is forbidden to take. This mechanical usage is the "essence" of what a race means. Other traits like darkvision (infrared) existed but were less consequential. The 1e mechanics were primitive and still evolving, and gaming culture was expected to express other characteristics about a race by means of "roleplay", such as if elves are supposed to be magical and artistic the players simply pretended them to be despite nothing about their 1e mechanics articulated their magical or artistic prowess. Indeed, 1e elves were forbidden to be innately psionic and forbidden to be Druids and therefor forbidden to be Bards. They could not reach high levels of Wizard (magic user), only the nonmagical Rogue (thief) was an unrestricted and unlimited class. Despite the narrative description of the opposite, the elves mechanically hated magic, hated nature, hated art, hated music, hated innate magic, and by the way, even hated being a gish (fighter / magic user). I find the 1e mechanics incompetent at cohering mechanics with the flavorful description. Unfortunately, this "tradition" has continued to straightjacket the elf mechanically, despite the dissonance of the flavor being the exact opposite. D&D roleplay required doublethink, holding two contradictions to be as if true simultaneously.

Fortunately, D&D mechanics continue to evolve. The class prohibitions and level restrictions were widely rejected immediately, and even 1e began the infinitude of elf subraces to slip past the race-class dissonance, and swap the ability score improvements. Similarly, mechanics to handicap female characters were widely rejected immediately.

By 2e much of the problematic 1e mechanics were gone. So elves can be Druid and powerful Wizard, and no more handicapping women.

3e systemized the random ad-hoc mechanics of 1e and 2e, by making ability bonuses the fundamental mechanic of the gaming system. Unfortunately, the dissonanant race ability score improvements carried over.

Inadvertantly, 3e thus made the earlier bad design whose bonus and flavor contradicted each other, into a fundamental definition of a race, with far reaching gaming consequences.

4e continued the ability score improvements but began making them fluid by granting choices of equally weighted ability combinations for each race. Moreover 4e gave each race a powerful race feat (like Misty Step teleportation) that was often as good as the ability score improvements. Moreover, later options often swapped race features, to specify certain flavorful tropes while maintaining balance (such as swapping weapon proficiency for spell focus or spell casting options).

Originally, 5e removed the race feats and doubleddown on a weighted ability score improvement restriction, even when it brightly contradicted the multiple flavors within a race. 5e used a heavy hammer to force a rounded race concept thru a square hole. Fortunately, the unwise start has softened, by 5e now making the ability scores float, to fluidly explore the many tropes and concepts that exist within each race.

In sum, the D&D tradition has made a "race" mean almost nothing except an ability score improvement. The other features are less significant, and peripheral as subraces or options. Besides their reallife historical origins from racist assumptions, the ability score improvements are less good gaming design, that prove too inflexible, and less able to quantify the various narrative descriptions with the race itself.

I hope D&D 5e returns to the tradition of powerful race feats and swappable options, for each race to be a more diverse and complex community.
Mostly a good post, but there's no contradiction with 3e or 5e racial ability bonuses and the races themselves.

Where 3e messed up was not in the racial bonuses, but in keeping the racial penalties. Those penalties created more of a class pigeonhole than bonuses ever did. Especially in a system where the bonuses and improvements were baked into the math.

5e did not do that. There is neither contradiction, nor any sort of pigeonholing going on. Anyone who feels otherwise is psyching themselves into believing something that the math doesn't bear out.

With a +2 5e is easy. With +3 it's very easy. With +4 it's incredibly easy. And with +5 it's a virtual cakewalk. Unless the DM increases the difficulty anyway.
 

Secondly, you are close to the right answer. The didn't expect dwarven wizards. They presented a lot of routes to discourage dwarven wizards (to preserve the archetype perhaps) and so the baseline assumes you would not play a dwarven wizard.
Show me the hard proof that not only did they not expect dwarven wizards, which they went out of their way to allow by allowing casting in metal armor, but actively discouraged dwarven wizards.
It shows the expected baseline progression of the game. I'm not saying the 60% is bad and evil, just that the math shows that the designers were likely balancing around a 65% success rate. That's it.
lol No. You don't get to just arbitrarily assume 65% is the baseline and 60% isn't.

15 is the highest score in the array and they could not assume that a player would choose a race with a bonus, so 15 is by far the most likely baseline stat.
Actually, it isn't reasonable to assume a 14 is your highest stat. And, even if it is, the majority of races are a +2, meaning that 14 can still be a 16.
16 doesn't matter. They would have balanced around +2 and +3 would be a bit better is all.
Then as long as we assume your highest stat is your prime stat, and that the game designers wanted to encourage race/class combos where you pick a race that gives a bonus to your prime stat, then the most likely baseline is 16 in your prime stat.
Don't assume that they are encouraging certain class/race combos. The design of 5e goes directly against that. It's by far the most permissive version of D&D that I've played in that regard, and that was before the floating bonus. Which by the way is very strong evidence that you are wrong. If they really do want to discourage certain race/class combos, then a floating bonus is not the way to go about it.
The only way I could be wrong is if the designers expected and planned for the majority of players to "play against type".
That doesn't make sense at all. You could also be wrong if they wanted some people to play against type. There's no need for a majority(or anywhere near it) to play against type in order for you to be wrong.
How are their feelings incorrect if those are the feelings they have? Are you saying you know their feelings better than they do?
I didn't say their feelings were incorrect. I said they were incorrect. You can feel like the entire world is out to get you. That won't make it true. The math proves that you don't need a +3 to do very well in your class. +2 still makes the game easy. If someone feels like they have to have a 16, they are wrong. They don't. That doesn't mean their feelings are wrong. Feelings are feelings.
Again, if you think the baseline should be playing against type, then you would be right. If you think the baseline is that the designers wanted to encourage people to play arcehtypical characters, then the baseline is 16.
No. There's no need for the baseline to be against type.
Which since I had to ask for clarification THREE TIMES, quoting you twice directly, maybe you weren't as "clear" as you think.
No one else had trouble with it.
Sure, but if you can only learn a skill related to a biological reality, then it isn't just a skill is it? Like the Cirque du Solie example you dropped.
Yes it is still just a skill.
Not one that I could retract back into my body. Or one that covered my entire body. Tell me, have you grown a full-body callus?
I'm not a fantasy creature with fantasy rules.
And your argument is since it is a learned skill, it can't speak towards a biological reality.
I said it's not limited to one race, making it NOT a racial ability.
Okay, so you have no idea how you could learn it, but since the PC can decide to get it later, it must be learned.

The PC can decide to get +2 Dexteritiy later as well, therefore an elves +2 Dexterity is likely learned as well. It is already a learned ability, so it doesn't matter.
PC's don't make the stat decision. Players do.
 

DMs have the choice for what? What does the DM have to do with my characters ability scores?
The game is set by default, the DM has the choice to allow some options or not in his campaign. If, as a DM, I don't want to use options like grids or floating ASIs, they are not available in that game.
 

Remove ads

Top