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

[Malmuria]

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.

Why do the player options necessarily apply to the entire race? That is, the floating ASI could just be a way of creating an individual character, not an entire fantasy race.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

powergaming is about one's own fun with no consideration to the fun of other players

Lies.

Just plain, blatant lies.

My table's powergamers (including me) all support other players. My table's artificer is the one most into powergaming, and guess what they use their resources in combat to do? Boost their fellow players. They cast Enlarge/Reduce through their Spell-Storing Item as a bonus action (from their Homunculus Servant) on the party's Open Hand Monk, and use their action to cast Haste on the Monk.

They start combat by placing the power of their fellow player above their own. They could have used those features on themselves and upped their damage significantly, but they instead choose to do it to the Monk, because they know that the monk will benefit the most from those spells out of anyone in the party (thus helping the party overall in combat), and they know that Teamwork is Dreamwork™, and it increases both their own fun to know that they're being as effective in combat as they possibly can, and the fun of their fellow player because they're doing a buttload of damage through comboing Hex, Haste, Enlarge/Reduce, and their activated Eldritch Claw Tattoo with Flurry of Blows, and absolutely wrecking everything in their path.

Yes, some powergamers are spotlight hogs that only care about their own DPR, not that of their fellow party members. The same also applies to some roleplayers that want to be the center of attention in non-combat encounters. In my experience, both are equally likely to happen, and often are the same people. However, corellation is not causation, and Powergaming in general is absolutely not about "one's own fun with no consideration to the fun of other players' fun".

I recommend that you actually play with some powergamers in the future. Good powergamers, not the spotlight hogs that you've proclaimed are the heart and sole of powergaming. Powergaming is not incompatible or discordant with teamwork. You just need to find the right people.

 

[abirdcall]

The intent of the game is to have fun. That's it. Nothing else matters. The rules as written or intended don't matter, what WotC and their staff wrote/writes about how to DM/play D&D, the only thing that matters is if the table is having fun. That's the intent of the game.

That is the point of every game and yet not only is D&D is different than tag it is intentionally different.

The intent from which to design a game around must go further than 'fun'.

 

[Lyxen]

The intent of the game is to have fun. That's it. Nothing else matters. The rules as written or intended don't matter, what WotC and their staff wrote/writes about how to DM/play D&D, the only thing that matters is if the table is having fun. That's the intent of the game.

Just read the introduction to the PH. I know, most of the people ignore it because they want to go to the crunchy parts, but it's actually well written. After that, of course, do whatever you want to do to have fun. But if people would only read the complete book, it might avoid people then complaining about the way the game has been designed. It has not been designed to be crunchy. It has not been designed as a fighting game with precise rules lie 4e was for example.

Wealth matters in D&D, but it depends on the table and the campaign (my Eberron campaign had the players come across a giant Siberys Dragonshard that crashed down from the sky and was worth 5 million gold pieces, so they sold it to House Cannith and got uber-rich at level 6, while in my Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign they're level 8 and don't even have 1,000 gold pieces all put together).

And this is just the proof that wealth does not matter. In previous editions, you needed wealth as it was an integral part of the computations needed to make sure you survived. In 5e, it serves no purpose.

Of course, inventive DMs can always make it matter in terms of story, but for example in my Avernus campaign, they are quite rich but it avails them to nothing as the only currency that is valid in Hell are souls...

Power matters in D&D (elsewise we wouldn't have levels beyond level 1), but how much it matters is also campaign dependent (some people like having really powerful players, and love maximizing how much their characters and fellow players have). The same applies to roleplay, exploration, combat, and every other aspect of the game. These things matter, but how much they matter is campaign dependent, and WotC's "intent" about these things don't matter at all.

It does matter, because once more it influenced the design of the game, and what you can easily do with it, compared to what is painful or annoying to do with it.

It doesn't matter if 5e is called "the world's greatest roleplaying game", because that's just a title. Roleplaying isn't enforced, and playing 5e is a strictly murderhobo fashion is a valid way to play the game, whether or not WotC favors that type of play.

Validity is one thing, ease of use and appropriateness is something else, see below.

The intent of the game is to have fun. Fun is subjective between table, campaign, and even players at the same table (but you do want the players at the table to have fun in similar enough ways that they can enjoy playing at the same table).

What the game designers say/said doesn't matter, because the intent of the game is to have fun. Nothing else matters.

Personally, I prefer playing games in line with their intent, just like I like driving cars in line with the intent of the constructor. I will not taker a ferrari to drive on tracks in the jungle. I could, but it would be silly, just like racing my 4x4 around a circuit track. I can probably do it for a while, but it will be less fun than driving a ferrari around a race track or driving my 4x4 on a jungle track.

As an example, people wanting a really crunchy tactical game are frustrated by 5e, and for good reason. The grid system is underdeveloped and clumsy because it's just an option for example. Lots of people are complaining about the action system, or the character creation process, as they are not developed enough, not enough tactical and technical possibilities, etc.

Again, there is nothing wrong with wanting these things, I used to love that at some points in my roleplaying history. But 5e has not been designed with these sort of details in mind, and it shows.

 

[Malmuria]

Just as I thought, not able to provide a single quote to support your position. Once more, all these rules are tools only (again, these are the devs' words), not the intent of the game.

Why does the intention of the "devs" matter so much? The creators of the World of Darkness games also intended their games to be story- and character-centric (in their view, in contrast to dnd), but many argue that the mechanics of these games don't actually support that design goal. I think when we look at game design the focus should be on the effect, not the intent.

First, I absolutely can. I spent a long time about 35 years ago playing a woodsman in the woods not gaining anything.

Second, I completely agree that "gaining power is not the same as powergaming", actually. It's all in the intent. For us, the aim is to tell stories, it so happens that, by doing this, and exactly like in books/movies of the genre, our characters grow, change, and get more powerful, but it's a side effect, not the aim of the game.

So would floating ASI create powergamers at your table? That is, your group has a distinct playstyle, that that centers on characters and stories, and so it seems, by your description, that your players are not the kind to use floating ASI just to find the most optimal combinations. Turns out, there are a lot of tables like this. At my table, floating ASI is irrelevant, because no one is looking to optimize in the first place.

Whereas, obviously, you play the game to get more xps, levels, and magic items, you just want more power, so it's powergaming.

Powergaming, if it means anything, should refer to a playstyle. I don't think you can take a central mechanic from the game (experience points and levels), and say that engaging with those elements constitutes a playstyle.

It also doesn't really matter why you level up your characters. You are basically saying "well, at our table we level up but only as a side effect of our rich, character-driven stories, whereas other tables level up because they are powergamers that don't care at all about story." It's a false dichotomy, self-aggrandizing, and condescending.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That is the point of every game and yet not only is D&D is different than tag it is intentionally different.

The intent from which to design a game around must go further than 'fun'.

We're not talking about design. We're talking about play.

The game is designed already. WotC has made the rules (though they may be in the process of revising some of them), and the intent is alrady baked into the game. The intent of the design doesn't matter anymore, play matters. And play is about fun.

 

[abirdcall]

Lies.

Just plain, blatant lies.

My table's powergamers (including me) all support other players. My table's artificer is the one most into powergaming, and guess what they use their resources in combat to do? Boost their fellow players. They cast Enlarge/Reduce through their Spell-Storing Item as a bonus action (from their Homunculus Servant) on the party's Open Hand Monk, and use their action to cast Haste on the Monk.

It's still the spotlight on them for being able to perform all these amazing assists.

A powergamer, by definition, is more concerned with whether they get another +1 to something or another spell slot than they are to the narrative of the game and other players.

This floating ASI business is all about whether a character has a +2 or +3, and very little to do with narrative considerations. People who aren't powergamers are, by and large, not going to care whether there are floating racial ASIs or not (again, by definition not caring about that +1).

My table doesn't use floating ASIs and any new player that would have a problem with that I wouldn't want at my table anyway because I just know that's only the tip of the iceberg. Invariably it's going to be all about them, whether it's doing the most things in game or spending a lot of time arguing with the DM.

This goes back to the point of the game. I would invite powergamers to play competitive strategy games with me. In fact, I want to play with those types the most. I do not want to play with them in my cooperative storytelling game.

 

[Helldritch]

Why do the player options necessarily apply to the entire race? That is, the floating ASI could just be a way of creating an individual character, not an entire fantasy race.

As it has been said by other posters in previous posts:" versimilitude "
Second, by using the array or rolling 4d6L, players are already exceptional members of their races. This is often forgotten by many. The players are heroes and thus benefit from better stat than the average member of their race. Do they really need an other advantage? Tje gods are generous but there must be a limit...

 

[abirdcall]

We're not talking about design. We're talking about play.

The game is designed already. WotC has made the rules (though they may be in the process of revising some of them), and the intent is alrady baked into the game. The intent of the design doesn't matter anymore, play matters. And play is about fun.

If the intent of the design doesn't matter to you why are you arguing about what the intent of the design is?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nope. I only need to run one game with arrays in order to have all the PCs using the same 6 numbers for their stats. The combos are not relevant to my issue. Stop trying to make them relevant to my issue. You can't do it and it's annoying.

If you players roll, and two of them roll a 16 and a 13 is that an issue? You seem to be thinking that just because the numbers are the same, that whether they put it into strength, dex or Cha makes no difference.

Which you know for a fact from this(and other threads) has never been my argument or position. Why even bring it up?

You said you didn't allow the standard array. Even if a player asked. That is forcing your personal aesthetic preference on another person.

Okay. Then I've seen MANY fighters with anywhere from a 7 to 11 strength due to rolling. The lowest 5e strength fighter I've seen is 14. We've only been playing 5e for about 3 years, so we have far fewer characters rolled so far.

So, out of sixteen numbers from 3 to 18, in terms of strength you have seen only 5 of them. I'll extend it out two more since you roll, but I think you are getting my point. Everything is a narrow range in DnD, and people tend to not dump the things they say are important to their character.

No I can't handwave away that all PCs start with the same 6 numbers. One doesn't have a negative impact on the game(rolling stats), but the other has a very significant negative impact on the game(loss of a huge number of character concepts/themes). The potential for both to have a 15 isn't an issue of mine, since rolling also has that potential.

If the potential for two people to share a number doesn't bother you, then why does it bother you that they are all working from the same pool? It isn't unrealistic. Especially if people continue choosing to roll anyways. If one person choose the standard array and the others rolled, then he doesn't share any numbers with anyone.

This is a purely aesthetic issue.

natural talent is a thing. 1st level characters aren't superheroes.

Oh sure, I know of plenty of people whose natural talent is being technically superior in every way to a person trained in that field with zero training or experience. If that isn't being a superhero, I don't know what is. In fact "instantly knows how to fight with no explanation" is a common superhero power.

No you're not. Even in boot camp soldiers don't come out with all identical strength numbers. Their strength varies wildly. 27 pushups in a minute, and 42 situps in a minute is really easy for young people. You can do that with average strength.

And, shockingly, I'm not advocating for identical strength scores. I'm not even advocating that they put the same numbers in the same places, I'm just saying that reaching the same area of basic competency is a thing, and in a game, that can be abstracted into a number.

You are the one declaring that people with no training just naturally know how to effectively use all weapons in all scenarios.

Have you ever read his books? From book 1 he was the hero. There was never anyone for him to be a Lancer to.

Have you ever researched him? Salvatore intended him to be a side character in Wulfgar's story, and then he ended up taking over so Salvatore made him the main character instead.

She predates Drizzt. She was in Greenwoods Forgotten Realms from the beginning, but didn't make it into the D&D settings until 1991.

"Eilistraee was first detailed in Ed Greenwood's The Drow of the Underdark (1991).[2] Before being detailed in published material, Eilistraee already existed in Ed Greenwood's original Forgotten Realms. When asked to create more drow deities, the author used this opportunity to make the Dark Dancer official.[12]"

So, the character who was the first good drow ever to be in print was created in 1988. Then, Greenwood, three years later, added her to the game officially.

Why do you think they were okay with a Good aligned Drow Goddess of Rebel Drow, three years after Driz'zt do'Urden became a massive financial and success and spawned literally thousands of copycats? Do you think he might have become iconic, maybe even archetypical, and so she made a great foil and gave people a way to have good aligned drow rebels connected more fully to the story of the drow?

That would be stupid. One, it goes against the envisioned character concept. And two, the "face" of the party isn't going to get to do anywhere near all of the talking.

What envisioned character concept? The concept was "Dwarf Cleric in armor". You are the one wanting to play a charismatic preacher. Maybe they think "hmm, should I" and then they see the other characters and decide that a 10 is enough for them. Maybe they just don't want to play a charismatic preacher and are looking for a more humble character. Maybe they put an 8 in charisma and want to play a brusque, rude and crude priest.

They are exceptions in the way the game sets forth. The game only makes them exceptional through stats and character class. It explicitly says that they are part of the race that includes the racial bonuses.

From the Racial Traits section in the PHB, page 17.

"The description of each race includes racial traits that are common to members of that race. The following entries appear among the traits of most races."

Those racial traits include the racial ability score increases.

Maybe those racial traits are common do to cultural training. That's why elves have weapons, spells, perception and a bunch of other features. Nothing in the text your quoted says that the traits must be a biological reality.

Observers who often incorrectly believe that someone has no chance or is very likely to lose. Sometimes the underdog gets lucky, but just as often or even more often, the underdog has some ability or trains super hard and really is just as good or better than the other guy.

You're position has been that +2 is a PC just barely getting by as viable. I know from game play and looking at the way encounters are supposed to be set up that they are good. You are underestimating +2 and treating them like the underdog.

Sorry, no, I'm not observing your games. So, I can't be the one underestimating the characters in your games. The only people observing your games are the other players and the DM (usually you). So, if you don't underestimate the character, and the other players don't underestimate the character, then how are they an underdog? No one who is observing is underestimating them.

I honestly don't know where you are getting that from. Most monsters are confident and eat/kill people. Some weaker monsters might be scared of an obviously high level party, but it's not the standard monster default position.

From Helldritch's literal posts that I am responding to. You did read the conversation before jumping in, correct? He was talking about how an unusual combo will throw off monsters, make them confused, frighten them and threaten everything they know. That's what the discussion with him was about.

5% of goliath COMMONERS are that strong. Once you add in the soldiers, veterans, guards, blacksmiths, farriers, etc., the % goes way up. And of course PCs are that strong nearly 60% of the time.

But, again, these monsters are mainly encountering normal goliaths. And the halflings in these monster infested areas probably have soldiers, veterans, guards, blacksmiths, farriers and ect's too, so their percentage goes up as well.

So, again, why would it frighten the monsters to run into an unusually strong halfling, but not an unusually strong Goliath?

I use average if they're stopping Joe Shmoe farmer and need him to do something. If it's a blacksmith, that blacksmith's strength and con will be very high, regardless of whether I've rolled or not. Despite being a commoner, I know he must be strong and enduring or he could not be a blacksmith. He also needs an above average dex to be able to place his blows correctly time and time again.

The common village, though, is going to have many of these "uncommon" commoners, as well as guards(militia), veterans who are retired now, etc.

Good for you, beside the point. The halfling blacksmith will also be strong and enduring, so it shouldn't matter.

I'm not sure how "used" to anything they are. If they attack even one village and are strong enough to win, they will probably be hunted down by capable individuals. Not even dragons run around sacking town after town after town. That's just guaranteed to get powerful people involved in making sure your existence ends. They certainly wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the a commoner with +4 rolling a 9 to hit an AC of 15 and a PC rolling a 6 to hit it. A hit is a hit. They're not going to sit down afterwards and attempt to calculate percentages.

Take that up with Helldritch, he's the one saying that archetypical adventurers are expected, while those that go against the grain will frighten and confuse monsters, maybe cause them to make mistakes.