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

[Lyxen]

Why do we want to declare that dwarves are of limited intelligence, or have a hard time learning magic? That does nothing for the story of dwarves that I'm interested in at least.

Then why do we say:

• Kobolds are craven reptilian humanoids that commonly infest dungeons. They make up for their physical ineptitude with a cleverness for trap making.
• Goblins are small, black-hearted humanoids that lair in despoiled dungeons and other dismal settings. Individually weak, they gather in large numbers to torment other creatures.
• 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.
  
  This is a fantasy world, races are not equal, and I love the dwarves in LotR for being incredible artisans and crafters, and other qualities. That does not make them good at magic, or as clever as Noldors (who are jerks for other reasons, in general).

So wait. Fixed ASIs allow you to bring a gimped character, but you need DM approval to do so? And putting my scores whereever I please on my character also needs DM approval?

Of course you do. It's the DM who allows ANY character to run in his world, so if you bring a character that does not meet his approval, you won't run it. Of course, most DMs will not veto things without reason, and will discuss things, but if the DM says no, it's no.

I'm sorry, I'll hand you back your character sheet and go grab my own, I didn't realize I had started writing on the DM's Character Sheet. Thought it was the Player's Character Sheet, and I can place my scores how I please.

And I'll take the example of the powergaming DM who will refuse your character for being to weak and potentially gimping the party when what he wants is to run a "highly dangerous world where idiots don't survive". I've seen a few of these on forums, people who think that they are basically there to prove that only "the best" (of what they think is the best) can survive in their incredibly dangerous campaign. Or worse, they might invite you in and then kill you as an example.

And still, it's not necessarily bad DMing. The players in these campaign are usually proud to be in such a highly competitive environment, so if it's what they are looking for, who's to judge their fun ?

It's not my cup of tea, but to each his own.

This isn't a bad rule because optimizers exist and have opinions. Again, you wouldn't ban whips just because every optimizer guide suddely found out they are the best weapon in the game, would you?

I might, or I might change the rules if I found that an optimiser is abusing the rules to create too much of a power gap. Out of fairness for the other players, so that they don't continuously find themselves underpowered like you did in one of your campaigns, if you see what I mean...

 

[Chaosmancer]

Clearly you don't understand, so we should probably leave it at that on this topic.

What is there to understand? You drew a line that these six numbers occasionally repeating is unrealistic, and so have banned the option of using them. Not because of any mechanics, but just because it offends your sense of aesthetics.

When the result is clearly nonsense, you should ask if that was accurate, rather than responding to something you know was not intended.

shrug You believe that stats are only biologically determined and that anything after level 1 is learned. I do not find it surprising that you might also consider the stats at level 1 to be "born" stats. The result is nonsense, but your insistence on biological realism makes the logical line run through.

Only because most DMs don't bother to differentiate monsters. When I was younger and had more time to prep, I rolled for monster stats and hit points individually.

Good for you. And your point? Clearly the monster stats not being differentiated doesn't bother you so much that you continue to roll for them, yet it bothers you so much that the players might work from the same small pool of numbers that you ban the entire option?

Actually, thinking about it, you probably ban the average hp too don't you?

I think my lowest was 7 back in 1e when we did 3d6 in order and keep what you roll. My lowest in 3e was 11. I don't remember what my 2e low was.

So no since the start of 5e. Which is the edition we are talking about. The 1e just highlights why I will never play 3d6 in order. And even still, none were that 3 you decided was the minimum.

Some of them don't train at all. The trope of the farmer's son taking up his father's sword to avenge him is pretty common.

You are right, it is common, it also isn't at all what a 1st level fighter is. Unless that Farmer's son is just born with the knowledge of how to wield every weapon and wear all armors. Things that are clearly skills, that the kid has. Heck, he's even mastered a fighting style enough to do all sorts of things, like intercept enemy attacks and fight blinded.

A level 1 fighter is far to skilled to literally be a farm boy with a sword who has had no training.

Because rules. They can do absolutely nothing requiring them to work out and exercise and get the same increase. That +2 unfortunately, isn't connect to anything in the game. I wish it was.

So, "because rules" works here, and it doesn't work for the small pool of numbers? Why? Because you are okay with one but the other offends you? Again, we aren't talking about your character and your character sheet, we are talking about the player's character.

Er, no. They make jokes about the hordes of people who all play against type in that way. A new archetype was not created.

Yes it was, an archetype is a recognized collection of tropes and story ideas. The Lancer (literary term) who has an antagonistic relationship with the Hero is an Archetype. The Heart is an archetype.

Driz'zt is an archetype. People recognize the flavors of the character instantly.

Or go for heavy, or just not care and get charisma

Sure, if you pick the right domain, you can do that. But only about half the domains give you heavy. And you could get Charisma, but a lot of people will see a 10 charisma as enough compared to getting that +1 AC.

Or they can do strength and charisma and ignore dex.

Sure, you can. You can also put your 8 in wisdom. You keep trying to nitpick that my general point most be wrong because a player might make a choice different than I think. What you are ignoring is that a lot of player tend to prioritize the same things. +1 AC is very tempting, especially if they aren't planning on doing a lot with int, cha or even str.

You're mixing up all kinds of things there. Average elves get compared to average other races. Exceptional elves get compared to exceptional other races. And then your conclusion doesn't logically follow your thought in any case. As members of that race, they would get the racial ASI regardless of whether they are exceptional or not. Exceptionality doesn't have anything to do with the racial bonus.

Why would they get it if they were exceptional? The very definition of that word is "exception". The rules for the player character's are meant to make exceptional people. So, if they are exceptions to the averages of their race... then the rules are still working perfectly fine. I know you don't like it, but you are the only one espousing this view that the population of average elves is important to uphold.

Okay. That's just how they do it for their game, though. @Lanefan has never argued that the way he treats PCs is the way it should be done in my game or yours.

I never said they did. I said people trying to treat PCs like they are ordinary people doesn't work. Like trying to say that a Level 1 Fighter is an untrained farmboy who grabbed his father's sword. The only way to make that work is to ignore just how good your fighter actually is.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, just for laughs, I wanted to see what Tasha's did to 'meta pick' race options for Barbarians. Using this one. RPGBOT - DnD 5e - The Barbarian Handbook

Now, I have no idea if this site is right, but most of it seemed to make sense. Its ranked by colour.

Blue > Green > Orange > Red, with Blue being best.

Floating
Blue - 7 options.
Green - 15 options.
Orange - 13 options.
Red - 11 options.

Fixed
Blue - 8
Green - 8
Orange - 12
Red - 21

Ignoring the fact I messed up and cant be bothered to make exactly sure what it was I missed (the math is off if you add them up), it seems pretty clear that allowing for the player to pick, makes a noticeable impact on balance, for a very stat driven class, like Barbarian.

Yes, and I want to note EXACTLY what that impact was.

The highest ranks? Went from 7 options to 8. The lowest ranks went from 21 to 11.

The balance wasn't destroyed, it was improved. A lot more "second best" races exist in the Floating ASI space. That is exactly what I want to see.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The audience. That's who roots for the underdog and the underdog that wins was underestimated by almost everyone, which is why he was labeled the underdog.

Why are your fellow players underestimating you for having a 15 as your highest stat Max?

 

[Lyxen]

Yes, and I want to note EXACTLY what that impact was.
The highest ranks? Went from 7 options to 8.

That is all that matters. People who read guides will not read beyond this and will not consider anything below blue. It just moved the goalpost.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Only for powergamers. Other play by the intent of the devs: "The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery." and "You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama. You create silly in-jokes that make you laugh years later. The dice will be cruel to you, but you will soldier on. Your collective creativity will build stories that you will tell again and again, ranging from the utterly absurd to the stuff of legend."

One is not more right than the other, but if you think that the intent of the game is gaining power, without any insult or judgment, you are a powergamer.

So the point of your adventures isn't to gain wealth and magical items? You players never grow in power as they overcome the odds? Almost like a leveling system with different tier ranks, compared to a challenge rating of which monsters you are powerful enough to face?

It is kind of right there in black and white.

 

[Chaosmancer]

DIfferent choice yes. But not different abilities given. Fixed ASI do that. Floating ASI do not. Fixed ASI creates expectations. It is by playing against those expectations (such as our halfling barb) that you can achieve to be an underdog and thus surprise your opponents. This can almost litterally be only done through RP. Floating ASI do not create expectations so foes should not have them.

Or you can stop metagaming your monsters. After all, the average commoner of every race is in the range of 10 to 12. The Goliath fighter with a 18 strength is unusually strong, impossibly strong he can't DO THAT!

But he does. Because he is a player character. So, why aren't your monsters constantly surprised by all PCs? Did they all read the optimization guides too?

 

[Lyxen]

So the point of your adventures isn't to gain wealth and magical items?

No, it's not. Really.

And neither is it he designers' intent, especially with 5e where wealth does not matter and magic items are totally optional, if I might add.

PH introduction: "You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama." Pray tell where it mentions wealth and magical items ?

You players never grow in power as they overcome the odds? Almost like a leveling system with different tier ranks, compared to a challenge rating of which monsters you are powerful enough to face?

It is kind of right there in black and white.

No it's not. Rules are just tools, just because they are there does not mean that you have to use them (and again, these are the designers own words "The rules are a tool" and "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.")

Have you read nothing I have written, like:

• We do not use XPs at all, neither do we use milestones, we level when it makes sense for the story to have characters progress, and we refrain from levelling (with all the players being in line with this by the way) if progressing would not make sense or would allow character abilities that would make the plot less interesting.
  • Note, this does not prevent us from playing campaigns to level 20, or even to have a campaign where we gained one level at each session, because it made sense.
• Adversaries do not have a tattoo on their forehead explaining their CR and whether they are appropriate for the adventurers or not. Sometimes it will be a cakewalk, sometimes an impossible fight, that you'd better flee from or even not start.

 

[Helldritch]

Or you can stop metagaming your monsters. After all, the average commoner of every race is in the range of 10 to 12. The Goliath fighter with a 18 strength is unusually strong, impossibly strong he can't DO THAT!

But he does. Because he is a player character. So, why aren't your monsters constantly surprised by all PCs? Did they all read the optimization guides too?

Why on earth would monsters and foes stop having expectations? It is a natural and logical thing that intelligent creatures will make judgments made on the history and habits of the known races. Halflings are poor fighters, dwarves are bad wizards, elves... are elves and bards should all be staked through the heart ( but that is an other topic.)

This is what fixed ASI make for the players. A chance to metagame by playing the unexpected. Because at some point, the stereotypes are reinforced by the racial ASI and thus monsters and foes will have the same expectations.

You jest with my RP, but I do RP monsters and foes with their basic interpretations and alignments. And I sometimes surprise my players with.... an unexpected build for a monsters. "But (insert any foe) are not supposed to that!" is a sentence I often hear at my table. Because even if the vast majority of my villainous creatures are in the MM, I can work with my players expectations too. This is exactly what role playing is about.

Now with generic RPG where you build what you want, there are no particular expectations as the lore does not provide any. GURPS, to mention one, is a really good system but it is generic and every race can do anything equally well. So intelligent foes will behave differently with no special expectations because there aren't any to begin with. D&D I unique in that it's lore is (so far) supported by mechanical rules (racial ASI and powers/skills) that many other non D$D related RPGs do not have.

Instead of taking one aspect of a game or post, try to look at it in its totality. This will let you understand a lot more my point of view as I do not focus only on one part of the game but to all its related part. Racial lore is as much important as the mechanical aspects of it that reinforced each other. Thus, this creates expectations and assumptions in both players and monsters about what the general adventurer of each race can usually do.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I think an issue is that, since the Commoner statblock is so pathetically weak, it's very trivial to surpass the average of a race as long as you're not dumping that stat.

A Barbarian will probably put the 13 of the Standard Array into Dex, so, if he's an Orc, Goliath or Dwarf, he'll already be more dexterous than an average Elf. When talking about "tough" races, the con bonus can't compare to just having the full hit die at level one like the PCs do, so even a Gnome Wizard with 10 Con will have more HP than an average Dwarf, their +2 can't offset that.