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

[Maxperson]

I don't care that you believe that. When it comes to player characters generating their stats using the default version of the rules, I'm not budging on this. You enforcing your preference on others for now other reason than you like it better, is not acceptable to me. I don't care if you think the rules of the book give you the right to do so, if the Standard Array was meant to be optional, they would have made it optional like they made point buy.

Whether you budge on this or not is irrelevant. You don't play in my game. In my game, per RAW, I as DM changed the rule with the power given to me by the game to change any rule.

You are deciding that because you think a character with the standard array is boring, a player isn't allowed to use the available option if they do not want to randomize. This is no different than saying that since you find a paladin with a longsword boring, all paladins must use hammers. You don't get to make that call to enforce your vision on a Player Character, they are not a Dungeon Master Character.

False Equivalences are false. First, I removed it because it's unrealistic, not boring. Every PC isn't going to be born with the same stats. Second, a proper analogy would be if hammers were unrealistic, so I removed all hammers from the game. At that point it would have nothing to do with paladins or PCs. It would just be a general house rule.

I'm not changing any meaning.

Other than the fact that you are anyway. "Make your highest stat" means something different than "highest placed stat." The former allows it to be after bonuses. The latter does not, and does not exist in the PHB. By adding +2 to the 13 I have made it my highest state.

As I said, you can't limit the discussion of archetypical dwarves to only DnD dwarves. Even if you did that, then you'd have to ask which DnD dwarves, so it is a pointless excersise to try and claim that because 50% of dwarves don't get a bonus that 100% of dwarves can't reach the baseline. The intent was blindingly obvious. Mountain Dwarves were meant to be martial characters, hill dwarves were meant to be clerical characters.

You've said it, but your words don't make it true. And no, I don't have to ask which D&D dwarves. Since 1e the single D&D dwarven(all subraces) archetype is fighters and clerics both. That means that hill dwarf fighters and mountain dwarf clerics are both archetypical. There is no further subdivision beyond dwarf.

And the setting. Which means that the archetypical elf needs to cover a lot more than being graceful and the archetypical dwarf needs to be a lot more than just tough. So, floating ASIs allows the core game to actually reflect the reality of play better.

I think you actually believe that.

You want graceful elves? Say that your NPCs are graceful. Done. You have graceful elves. Heck, you might not even have an elf player in which case there are zero elves outside of your control to be non-graceful.

There may not even be elves in the world. Another decision that I as DM can make per RAW that can affect character generation.

 

[Maxperson]

Not only interesting, but that seems really slow. Which is cool if you like long campaigns. Yaarel, if you don't mind me asking, how long does it take you to run a campaign, say to level 14? Thanks.

Some groups like really slow level up.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, I agree with this, but what we can do is not give them the opportunity to both max their attributes and get the optimal combination of race and class that means that their powers are going to be in synergy most of the time.



I agree, however you would notice the character who always pulls of the same combo(s) successfully, because of the combination above. Efficiency in combat (or social, if it comes to this) is really noticeable on optimised characters.

Again, I'm not against optimisation/powergaming, I'm just trying to limit its influence on casual by controlling the power gap.

Casual gamers aren't going to even try to optimize racial abilities. The vast majority of D&D players don't go online to look up combos and don't come to forums to talk about the game. We here are a small subset of D&D gamers. And a good chunk of the minority that do come here are like me and don't care about powergaming and optimization. There's no real need to guard against what the vast majority of D&D players aren't even going to attempt. You as DM can guard against that for your game.

 

[Maxperson]

Let's face it, they exist purely because of tradition. Or the whole ability score does, the modifier is all that is needed. And I actually like this tradition but I'm fully aware that if we were designing a game from scratch, no one in their right might would come up with such an convoluted system.

There are a number of rules which make use of the score number, not the bonus. The most notable is that +1, +2 and +3 aren't even remotely granular enough for carrying capacity. Then there are people like me that use the dex score to determine tie breakers for initiative rolls.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There are a number of rules which make use of the score number, not the bonus. The most notable is that +1, +2 and +3 aren't even remotely granular enough for carrying capacity. Then there are people like me that use the dex score to determine tie breakers for initiative rolls.

That's super niche. Most people really don't bother with encumbrance to begin with.

 

[Scott Christian]

Casual gamers aren't going to even try to optimize racial abilities. The vast majority of D&D players don't go online to look up combos and don't come to forums to talk about the game. We here are a small subset of D&D gamers. And a good chunk of the minority that do come here are like me and don't care about powergaming and optimization. There's no real need to guard against what the vast majority of D&D players aren't even going to attempt. You as DM can guard against that for your game.

This is true Max. But D&D is a group game, and the vast majority of tables have one player that does read up on this stuff. Knowledge doesn't always disseminate from players directly reading websites. In my observations, it spreads via one person that has read the guides, and then explains it to the table.
In the D&D clubs at high school that I have run for many years, it has always worked this way. One student learns something and then explains it to the others. (I stay out of teaching them anything and let the joy of discovery do its work. Unless it is rules clarification. So I have a very good opportunity to sit and observe.) When I play with other experienced players, I learn certain things from them. Part of it is optimization.
So optimization and powergaming, in my experience, results from other players teaching other players. It is not directly learned from guides.

 

[Maxperson]

After that, I honestly am not more pig-headed than people insisting that Floating ASIs are gifts from the light above and that I'm stupid for not accepting their great benefits, and this, by the way, without ever telling me exactly what these benefits are, and certainly not putting in practice benefits other than POWAAAH !

This Strawman aside, you have been told by people exactly what the benefits are, and none of those things have been POWAAH, AHHNOLD. They have all been story and background driven things, like you claim to want. People have told you that it allows new and different PC types to play. Racial bonuses encourage certain types of character, but not others.

That's nice, I hope that you do realize that I don't even know if you are a powergamer or not ?

You don't know this about anyone here that isn't in your group. And if your interactionw with me are any indication, you're pretty bad at figuring it out.

 

[Maxperson]

As for power gamers , the perfect. Example is Songoku from dragon ball Z

Saiyan in general. They're all focused on being the strongest and best.

 

[Maxperson]

That's super niche. Most people really don't bother with encumbrance to begin with.

I had to figure out dragging weight for a PC in my last game. It became important during a combat. The granularity of strength was a part of that. It's more than just encumbrance.

 

[Maxperson]

This is true Max. But D&D is a group game, and the vast majority of tables have one player that does read up on this stuff. Knowledge doesn't always disseminate from players directly reading websites. In my observations, it spreads via one person that has read the guides, and then explains it to the table.
In the D&D clubs at high school that I have run for many years, it has always worked this way. One student learns something and then explains it to the others. (I stay out of teaching them anything and let the joy of discovery do its work. Unless it is rules clarification. So I have a very good opportunity to sit and observe.) When I play with other experienced players, I learn certain things from them. Part of it is optimization.
So optimization and powergaming, in my experience, results from other players teaching other players. It is not directly learned from guides.

I'm not go to argue this, since I don't see the new players and how they learn things. I'm just going to say that it seems like much ado about nothing to me. The optimal abilities that the floating ASIs now allow you to access(you could before anyway) aren't that much better. It's a small shift that adding 1 or 2 more orcs to the fight will compensate for.

My deal is the realism aspect and the racial norms aspect. That's why floating ASIs are not used in my game. The negligible power increase isn't really a concern of mine, because it's very easily compensated for. I only have one player that will bother, anyway. The rest of the players are like me and make characters for story and roleplay.