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

[Malmuria]

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.

It's not as crunchy and grid-oriented as 4e but neither is it as rules-lite as basic. Nor is it a pbta or story game, with specific mechanics to enable story-now narrative creation. The mechanics on both the player-facing and dm-facing side, as well as the default action in the published modules, leans towards combat-as-sport, with a series of balanced encounters strung together to form a narrative. Non of the above is a remotely controversial description of what 5e is, as a game, and is perfectly consistent with what Crawford and Mearls have said about it either within the pages of the core books or outside of them.

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.

5e's success is due to it being capacious, but it also means it has a far larger scope than tightly focused rpgs. For example, it doesn't require a grid...until you read about an ability or spell that works much easier if you are tracking precise 5' distances. You can do social encounters with it, but it lacks the mechanics that other games have to facilitate those encounters. etc.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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

Uh, no, it isn't. When the monk deals 100 damage in a turn because of how many features are stacked onto them, the monk feels like they're the one in the spotlight, not the one who gave them these supports. It's a mutualistic symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one.

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.

You're very strictly defining "the narrative of the game" as being non-combat centric. At a table that revolves around combat and player power, that is the center of the game, and the powergamer is contributing to it through their player choices for their character.

And, you're wrong about the definition of a powergamer. A powergamer is someone that has fun through their players having more power. That doesn't mean that they don't care about the story less than any other players, it just means that they just find their character's power important.

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).

Wrong again. Plain wrong.

Yes, by definition, the floating ASI business is about moving around bonuses. However, that doesn't mean that it has nothing/little to do with narrative considerations.

Want a story about a Half-Orc that has a genetic disorder that makes their muscles weaker than their orc and half-orc kin? Weaker than the average human? This story is interesting and compelling, and can be accomplished through the "floating ASI business". This supports storytelling.

Want a story about a Gnome that uses their mental capacity for wittiness and a quick tongue instead of inventions/illusions? Move that +2 INT to a +2 CHA, and make them a Bard or Warlock. Yes, gnomes generally are more intelligent than the average human, but player characters are the outliers and don't have to be beholden to those generalities.

Want a story about a Halfling that spent their childhood alongside Goliaths, and trained their absolute hardest to be able to beat them in arm-wrestling contests? Move that +2 DEX to STR, and you've got that story.

Yes, it is about moving around the bonus. However, that bonus is still a part about the character's story.

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.

You've just never played with a good powergamer before. And you're gatekeeping because of your anecdotal experience. Play how you want, but don't bash others and tell them that they're "playing against the intent of the game" for playing how they want.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Excellent! Thank you. And all these comes from a period where there were only fixed ability score increase! And even then, if you read the books, these are the exceptions and not the norm! And yet, you went in products that were not using the as based race (wild dwarves and ghostwise halflings are not in the core rule of any editions) But since I failed to mention core rules, I must give you that one and yet, instead only working in your favor, it works in mine as these are still exceptions and not the norm. You see there are two ways to look at things, the fact that you had to search for fringed official products and went for exceptions and not a "common" sight to prove your point just proved mine.

There are no dwarven wizards in any core rules (save 4ed but we all know how this edition was received...). The same goes for barbarian halflings. You need to go for fringed character, articles and products to find meaningful examples and even then, they are the exceptions and not the norm. My point stands.

Your point is that playing a Dwarven wizard wasn't encouraged until just now? Ok, you win. They weren't. Well, the weren't for people like me, for people like Maxperson or Lyxen they've been perfectly fine to play all 5e... actually you could play them in 3.5 too.

So, just the last 21 years of the game.

I'm sorry you haven't adjusted your lore to account for the last three editions of the game, but that isn't my fault. My point is that if you are running 5e, and you want to say that dwarves using magic is confusing for people, then you aren't running it as it is presented. Heck, like I said "dwarf casting wall of fire" is a Dwarven Cleric, and that's been a thing since 2e, so the past 32 years of the game.

Three decades of dwarven magic being a thing. Did I eve say it was common place? Nope. Just a thing that dwarves can do, and logically adventurers could do. If you are still running where no one expects magic from a person in metal armor, well, you can, but that is clearly not the world 5e is presenting.

 

[Malmuria]

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...

But if they are already exceptional then they are already "breaking" the verisimilitude of the world. In fact, even by choosing a class and acquiring special abilities, they are already different from the average member of their race. This is all the more the case as soon as they reach level 2. For me, the default assumptions of the world don't need to (and in-effect, do not) apply to the PCs.

For example, in 1e, only humans, half-elves, and half-orcs could be Clerics. Did that means that in those worlds there were not Dwarf, Elf, or Halfling clerics? No...among other things, you could run into such clerics as NPCs (as detailed in the monster manual). It just means the player options were restricted and different from the default assumptions of the setting.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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

This reads to me similarly to "If you're not discriminated against by racism, why do you care about racism?" (Note: I'm not trying to compare racism to this scenario, I'm just pointing out that someone can care about something that doesn't impact them personally.)

I care that other people care and are telling others "the intent of the game supports me, and not you". Is that not enough for you?

 

[abirdcall]

Uh, no, it isn't. When the monk deals 100 damage in a turn because of how many features are stacked onto them, the monk feels like they're the one in the spotlight, not the one who gave them these supports. It's a mutualistic symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one.

You're very strictly defining "the narrative of the game" as being non-combat centric. At a table that revolves around combat and player power, that is the center of the game, and the powergamer is contributing to it through their player choices for their character.

And, you're wrong about the definition of a powergamer. A powergamer is someone that has fun through their players having more power. That doesn't mean that they don't care about the story less than any other players, it just means that they just find their character's power important.

Wrong again. Plain wrong.

Yes, by definition, the floating ASI business is about moving around bonuses. However, that doesn't mean that it has nothing/little to do with narrative considerations.

Want a story about a Half-Orc that has a genetic disorder that makes their muscles weaker than their orc and half-orc kin? Weaker than the average human? This story is interesting and compelling, and can be accomplished through the "floating ASI business". This supports storytelling.

Want a story about a Gnome that uses their mental capacity for wittiness and a quick tongue instead of inventions/illusions? Move that +2 INT to a +2 CHA, and make them a Bard or Warlock. Yes, gnomes generally are more intelligent than the average human, but player characters are the outliers and don't have to be beholden to those generalities.

Want a story about a Halfling that spent their childhood alongside Goliaths, and trained their absolute hardest to be able to beat them in arm-wrestling contests? Move that +2 DEX to STR, and you've got that story.

Yes, it is about moving around the bonus. However, that bonus is still a part about the character's story.

You've just never played with a good powergamer before. And you're gatekeeping because of your anecdotal experience. Play how you want, but don't bash others and tell them that they're "playing against the intent of the game" for playing how they want.

Finding ways to justify powergaming choices narratively is not the same thing as caring most about the narrative and the act of cooperative storytelling.

If the motivation is strategy and tactics first then the cooperative storytelling comes second.

I'm not saying that all powergamers don't care about the storytelling aspect at all, just by definition, it is a secondary consideration.

The motivation is to find that +1 and then to just it narratively rather than the other way around.

 

[abirdcall]

This reads to me similarly to "If you're not discriminated against by racism, why do you care about racism?" (Note: I'm not trying to compare racism to this scenario, I'm just pointing out that someone can care about something that doesn't impact them personally.)

I care that other people care and are telling others "the intent of the game supports me, and not you". Is that not enough for you?

Yikes.

 

[Helldritch]

Your point is that playing a Dwarven wizard wasn't encouraged until just now? Ok, you win. They weren't. Well, the weren't for people like me, for people like Maxperson or Lyxen they've been perfectly fine to play all 5e... actually you could play them in 3.5 too.

So, just the last 21 years of the game.

I'm sorry you haven't adjusted your lore to account for the last three editions of the game, but that isn't my fault. My point is that if you are running 5e, and you want to say that dwarves using magic is confusing for people, then you aren't running it as it is presented. Heck, like I said "dwarf casting wall of fire" is a Dwarven Cleric, and that's been a thing since 2e, so the past 32 years of the game.

Three decades of dwarven magic being a thing. Did I eve say it was common place? Nope. Just a thing that dwarves can do, and logically adventurers could do. If you are still running where no one expects magic from a person in metal armor, well, you can, but that is clearly not the world 5e is presenting.

So now you tell me that my lore is not up to date, yet you conceive the point that dwarven wizard never were numerous? Where was I wrong? You keep telling me that and yet you side with me while saying the contrary?????

Never have I said that dwarven wizard never existed in any edition. In fact, I forced/tricked you to search so that you would see that they were rare to the extreme. Heck they make magical items since basic may I remind you. I said that dwarven wizard were not a thing that people, monsters, foes would not take for granted as a common or even an uncommon sight.

We essentially say the exact same thing but with a different perspective. I say this encourages fixed ASI while you claim the contrary.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But if they are already exceptional then they are already "breaking" the verisimilitude of the world.

I agree with you on this, but I also have sympathy for the other position. @Helldritch @Maxperson @Scribe and others have said that the racial ASIs are important to them in how they support their preferred imagery of the game world, and rules that allow races to break their traditional archetypes lessen that imagery. I get it. I'm right there with them on exotic player races, zeppelins, rapiers, technology (e.g. all the "clockworks" in Dragon Heist), and a bunch of things that don't fit my preferred thematics but that seem to increase with every edition and even every supplement within an edition. I wish they weren't in the game, but they are.

But, at the same time, while I have to accept those things in other people's campaigns and other people's characters, I don't have to choose them for my own characters. I'm hoping others will make peace with floating ASIs....because that's the way the game is going...and find they can still enjoy the game.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

I have read it, and several times mind you. I read it before I read anything else in any of the Core 5e Rulebooks when I started playing the game. That doesn't mean that it is the final say on how the game can be/should be played, it's just how they intended it when designing 5e. And that has changed throughout the years. Now they support a larger variety of playstyles, which is an objectively good thing.

WotC detailed the two most important aspects of D&D being its ability to foster and develop friendships, and it's ability to encourage imagination. Neither of those go against the playstyle of powergaming. Powergaming is not incompatible with teamwork or friendships (which I can attest to from my personal experience as a Powergamer Player and DM), and if anything, it encourages creativity.

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...

No, it's proof that it can matter. It might not matter at certain tables, but it does at others. My Eberron campaign would certainly be way, way different if the player characters' wealth didn't matter.

It doesn't need to be an integral part of the edition to matter. That's like saying that your pinky finger doesn't matter because you can survive without it. That's not what the definition of "matter" means.

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 really doesn't. Not anymore. Maybe it mattered when they were designing the core of the game, but it doesn't anymore. Intent matters up until it's published. After that, it doesn't matter. Death of the Author and all that.

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

No, it's not. Validity is all that matters. If it's valid, it's an equally appropriate and fine way to play the game. Stop with this "fun supremacy" (preaching that your playstyle of fun is more valid/appropriate because "it's what the game designers were intending when making the game"). It doesn't matter. It may not be "badwrongfun" (because you're going out of your way to avoid saying that it's wrong to play those ways), but you're still saying that it's inferior/"not as important/appropriate".

Frankly, "playstyle appropriateness" can go to hell. If I want to play a Spelljamming, Swashbuckling, rag-tag campaign with Laser Pistols, 4-armed Monkey-People, and Hippo-Headed, Gunslinging Brits, that's just as valid a campaign as the "typical" or "intended" style of playing the game. I don't care if Gygax designed the game without intending to have Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Planescape, or the rest of the vast swathe of D&D settings and playstyles be playable. Fun is all that matters now, not what the heck the designers were intending when making the game.

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.

Personally, I prefer playing games how it is fun for me, just like how I prefer eating food in a way that appeals to my taste-buds, not how it appeals to the people who made the meal that I bought. It doesn't matter if a dish was made to be mixed all together to taste a blend of flavors at once to me, I prefer eating the parts of my meal separate from one another. It is neither less valid nor acceptable for me to do this, because I'm still eating the food, I'm still paying the people for making the food, and I'm still enjoying the food. I just don't enjoy it in the same way that others might, and I'm not enjoying it in the same way that was intended.

Both are valid ways to eat food/play the game. It doesn't matter if one was the intent. That doesn't make it better or superior. Stop saying that it does, please.

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.

I was originally going to reply to this, but this is really neither here nor there for both this post and the one you were replying to, so it just ended up being a red-herring.