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

[Chaosmancer]

The rules are explicitly just guidelines. Did some play that way? Yep. Did others not play that way? Yep. I saw more elves and dwarves not have an issue with each other than I saw have such an issue. Parties tended to be mixed races and if you were roleplaying that way, it was disruptive. And if you didn't roleplay that way with your party, then it didn't make sense to do it with other members of the race outside of your party.

And again, the argument wasn't that people played that way, but that the rules stated that was the way to play. Your argument that very few people followed the rules doesn't magically make the rules not exist.

 

[Chaosmancer]

They cannot get to 17. That is the realm of specialization which only the non-humans can reach.

Okay, but we aren't arguing about getting a 17, we are arguing that the baseline is 16. And the counter argument is that it is 15.

Since humans can achieve a 16 in any stat they choose, that seem to imply very heavily that that is the baseline.

No, because they have always been allowed. However to remove the specialization present pre-Tasha's is what dilutes things. When everyone can do it, its no longer special.

This isnt about what you can do, or what you wish to do at your own table. This IS about a view on these races which does then inform the setting, and if I like it or not, FR and 5e are tightly bound.

I dont like Tasha's, but when it was an option, I didnt care as its easily dismissed. That design paradigm becoming the ONLY OPTION moving forward? Thats me losing something that even if they kinda sucked at it, at least it was there in some capacity.

Regardless, its all stuff I house rule now, because as I said months and months ago, this is the path they will take going forward.

If your character is no longer special because they aren't the only one that can start with a 17 in their prime stat, I don't feel for you. They should have been far better designed than to rely on that as their selling point.

I'm glad you have found combinations you enjoy. None of that jumps out as 'Dextrous Elf, Hardy Dwarf, Savage Orc, Nimble Halfling' or the like. Perhaps I simply dont engage with the same fiction you do, but just because something can be thematic, doesnt mean its an archetype, to me.

Exactly the bolded. There is new fiction. There are new ideas. People have new archetypes they want to engage in. And we want the mechanics to stop standing in our way from those archetypes by enforcing the archetypes of past generations exclusively.

Edit:

Oh, and this is a misrepresentation of my position. I've repeatedly said you can use and enjoy Tasha's. Multiple times in this thread.

Sure, but you still came to this thread to decry the possible existence of 6e making Tasha's the default option. When the first post of this thread was someone just coming forward and saying "actually, I was wrong, I like this change."

 

[Lyxen]

So, you don't want the players to have the choice of how to build their character. Why not allow it the same way you allow players to choose to roll or take point buy, or are you one of those DMs who doesn't allow their players that choice? I know there are many who insist on rolling and I've had friends walk from games because the DM refused to allow them any other choice in character creation.

You're right, I dont, when I ask players to create characters, I ask them (and they are happy to) all use the same method, and we use a method that guarantees that were will be no major discrepancy between the characters generated.

Over decades of D&D, I have seen too many examples of:

• Powergamers gloating about their power and denigrating other players skills, if not outright abusing the differences.
• Powergamers actually ordering other players around for the overall optimisation of the tactics and yelling at them when their orders were not followed.
• Players who just want to have fun roleplaying with their friends being bullied by the above on many levels.

So I would always use point-buy, except that it's now being used for "builds", so we are using rolling but with enough extra-steps to prevent abuse and discrepancy. And no-one complains. And any player who disagrees with this is welcome to walk away, it has never happened to me but I'm pretty sure I would not have regretted that player during long campaigns.

And the same, no player has ever complained about using the standard races, with the standard modifiers, even when they were negative ones.

Honestly, I just don't see how this even affects the DM. This changes nothing except makes certain things more likely, and why do you care if the elf has a 16 strength. I could happen because of a +2 strength, it could happen becuase they rolled dice, so what's the difference?

See above. It started in 3e (we had powergamers and even munchkin before, but it was an explosion then) where optimisation allowed players to create characters which were immensely powerful compared to others, with the very negative consequences listed above, amongst many others. So yes, it makes a lot of difference.

In 5e, as it is far less optimisable and because the game is now firmly back where it belongs, in the hands of the DM instead of in entitled players' hands, it creates far less trouble (and even the powergamers in our groups have understood how bad it was for the ambiance at the tables, so they are now full yinto cooperative play, as is intended), still why invite it ?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Make Floating the default, and provide the text for ASI as it stands now, as an option.

Problem solved.

One million points. Total agreement. I have no problems with this.

 

[Lyxen]

I think everyone in this thread in favor of racial ASIs has also come out in favor of floating ASIs being available to people via Tasha's.

Yes, even me (and I'm as hardcore and old-fashioned as players come), as long as it remains an option (and therefore controlled by the DM). I understand powergaming and the want/need to explore the game system, and if it pleases some part of the player base to do so, while still having no influence on tables who wish otherwise, I just wish them happy gaming. The more people playing D&D the better, it can be played in many different ways and to each his fun as long as there is respect for the other players as well.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And if they want to change the game such that those archetypes are no longer important, they should bite the bullet and make a new edition, with a new setting, that leans into all these changes that the swarms of new players seem to want. Make 6e, and stop trying to "fix" 5e.

Why? Honestly, I'm fine with Tasha's being how it is. It is now the default at my tables and I am content with that. It has changed no settings. It has removed no archetypes. All it has done is open up the space to make new archetypes.

They don't need 6e. My only issue is people continually bashing the floating scores as terrible just because they want character concepts they don't like to be punished with lower scores because they aren't playing to stereotypes.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'll do just one try to keep it on ASIs rather that on racism, but I think


Because it's a power option, probably taken by a powergamer, it will potentially increase the differences in power level between optimised characters and normal ones, leading to the usual trouble when this happens. If it was a whole powergaming table (which, again, is absolutely fine), then the DM would probably approve all power options to please his players, and there would not be trouble of that kind.

There is no powergaming. If getting a 16 in your prime stat is powergaming then every single person who has every played a human character is a powergamer.

You're right, I dont, when I ask players to create characters, I ask them (and they are happy to) all use the same method, and we use a method that guarantees that were will be no major discrepancy between the characters generated.

Over decades of D&D, I have seen too many examples of:

• Powergamers gloating about their power and denigrating other players skills, if not outright abusing the differences.
• Powergamers actually ordering other players around for the overall optimisation of the tactics and yelling at them when their orders were not followed.
• Players who just want to have fun roleplaying with their friends being bullied by the above on many levels.

So I would always use point-buy, except that it's now being used for "builds", so we are using rolling but with enough extra-steps to prevent abuse and discrepancy. And no-one complains. And any player who disagrees with this is welcome to walk away, it has never happened to me but I'm pretty sure I would not have regretted that player during long campaigns.

And the same, no player has ever complained about using the standard races, with the standard modifiers, even when they were negative ones.

Sure, those people are terrible people. You should never yell at another player for basically any reason except that you were rping a scene.

But it seems you have responded to bullies by simply removing as many choices from the player's hands as you reasonably could. Which doesn't stop bullies.

See above. It started in 3e (we had powergamers and even munchkin before, but it was an explosion then) where optimisation allowed players to create characters which were immensely powerful compared to others, with the very negative consequences listed above, amongst many others. So yes, it makes a lot of difference.

In 5e, as it is far less optimisable and because the game is now firmly back where it belongs, in the hands of the DM instead of in entitled players' hands, it creates far less trouble (and even the powergamers in our groups have understood how bad it was for the ambiance at the tables, so they are now full yinto cooperative play, as is intended), still why invite it ?

Because bullies aren't stopped by preventing good players from making choices.

Again, a variant human with a feat is highly optimized. Just rolling for stats and forcing people to pick optimized races doesn't remove optimization, it enforces it. Sure, you might prevent a dwarven wizard from having a 16 INT and armor, but you've also guaranteed that people who choose to play a halfling wizard because they like the idea are open to being derided for making "the wrong choice".

None of the actual problematic behavior is being prevented by your choices.

 

[Lyxen]

That's not a path I'll discuss. So good luck with that.

I don't want to discuss it either, especially in this thread, especially because I find it really amazing as to how this focuses on racial ASIs every single time, while at the same time ignoring things which, even in 5e, should be taken much more seriously by people interested by the subject:

• Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc gods, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god’s influence.)
• Orcs are savage humanoids with stooped postures, piggish faces, and prominent teeth that resemble tusks. They gather in tribes that satisfy their bloodlust by slaying any humanoids that stand against them.
• The orcs’ drive to reproduce runs stronger than any other humanoid race, and they readily crossbreed with other races.

But, for some reason (which I suspect but can't be sure of so I'll wait for confirmation), it's still only about the racial ASIs which, honestly, are really not offensive at all in 5e, being all positive, just spread differently in various races.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I know from your other posts, you are aware that many D&D gamers, including designers and business owners giving warning labels, consider the D&D tradition to include problematic elements, especially regarding racism and sexism.

It absolutely does. Elves being more agile than dwarves is not one of those problematic elements.

 

[Lyxen]

There is no powergaming. If getting a 16 in your prime stat is powergaming then every single person who has every played a human character is a powergamer.

No, it's not, because as a balancing factor for having more racial ASIs, the humans lack many other powers, so in effect almost no-one plays a non-variant human. As for variant humans with the feat, on the other hand, they are part of many builds because of the feat, which again goes to prove that it IS a power option.

Sure, those people are terrible people. You should never yell at another player for basically any reason except that you were rping a scene.

But it seems you have responded to bullies by simply removing as many choices from the player's hands as you reasonably could. Which doesn't stop bullies.

Actually, it does, 20 years experience on this has shown it in our groups. Although, by far, the best effect has been obtained by putting the reins of the game back into the DM's hands, which has also stopped the bullies from rules-lawyering. In both these respects, 5e is an absolute, total win.

Because bullies aren't stopped by preventing good players from making choices.

The devs disagree about what makes a good player: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

For me, a good player is a player willing to play WITH the other players and not AGAINST them in any way, shape, or form, and this includes not wanting to be stronger than the others for any reason whatsoever.

Again, a variant human with a feat is highly optimized. Just rolling for stats and forcing people to pick optimized races doesn't remove optimization, it enforces it.

No one at our tables has ever been forced to play an optimised race, if there is even such a thing. Actually, we have very few humans at our table, even though we allow variant humans.

Sure, you might prevent a dwarven wizard from having a 16 INT and armor, but you've also guaranteed that people who choose to play a halfling wizard because they like the idea are open to being derided for making "the wrong choice".

And it's people who deride other players for making a halfling wizard who find themselves uncomfortable at our tables, as this is bullying, contrary to the intent of the game, and certainly not the mark of a good player.

None of the actual problematic behavior is being prevented by your choices.

Actually they are, again, 20 years of experience on this and we have none of the trouble that 3e created for us. I agree that the problems are not completely solved, as there are still people coming with the "builds", but not having fixed stats forces them to think about their choices and actually do their own work (rather than parroting online guides), and keeps the discrepancies to a minimum, enforcing much better play and ambiance for every one.