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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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

Not all the time. But it can be. In my experience, most of the time it is. Players like playing characters in a sensical manner and like making sense of the options they choose.

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.

Wrong. The motivation is fun, and their means to accomplish that fun is enhancing their own (or their party's) power, then the cooperative storytelling still comes first, like always.

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

D&D is filled with justifications for ulterior motives. D&D could have its own unique races when it was created, but instead it just used Tolkien's fantasy races and used in-world justifications as excuses for having them. That's not inherently a bad thing. It's just a thing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Not all the time. But it can be. In my experience, most of the time it is. Players like playing characters in a sensical manner and like making sense of the options they choose.

Wrong. The motivation is fun, and their means to accomplish that fun is enhancing their own (or their party's) power, then the cooperative storytelling still comes first, like always.

D&D is filled with justifications for ulterior motives. D&D could have its own unique races when it was created, but instead it just used Tolkien's fantasy races and used in-world justifications as excuses for having them. That's not inherently a bad thing. It's just a thing.

It seems like you are responding to somebody, but you forgot to quote them.

 

[abirdcall]

Not all the time. But it can be. In my experience, most of the time it is. Players like playing characters in a sensical manner and like making sense of the options they choose.

Wrong. The motivation is fun, and their means to accomplish that fun is enhancing their own (or their party's) power, then the cooperative storytelling still comes first, like always.

D&D is filled with justifications for ulterior motives. D&D could have its own unique races when it was created, but instead it just used Tolkien's fantasy races and used in-world justifications as excuses for having them. That's not inherently a bad thing. It's just a thing.

Just saying "Wrong. It's fun" over and over doesn't actually mean anything.

People get their fun in different ways.

Some people get their fun primarily through powergaming.

Others get it primarily through cooperative storytelling.

People have fun in different ways. If I play D&D with a group of powergamers I'm not going to have fun. And that's what it's all about right?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It seems like you are responding to somebody, but you forgot to quote them.

No, I quoted them. They may have blocked you, though, so you can't see their posts.

 

[Scribe]

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.

As simple as keeping fixed ASI as an option that is documented in the actual books. Thats literally all I'm asking for.

Not only option.
Not even primary option.
Simply WoTC acknowledges it.

 

[ReshiIRE]

As simple as keeping fixed ASI as an option that is documented in the actual books. Thats literally all I'm asking for.

Not only option.
Not even primary option.
Simply WoTC acknowledges it.

I wouldn't be against that, particularly if it was presented as part of a quick build for a race.

I think that if the two rules are to co-exist, however, that ASI absolutely can't be a balance consideration for races besides how many boosts there is (so whether a race has a +1, +1, +1, a +2, +1, or a +2).

Then again, I do think that 5.5e or 6e, as backwards compatible as it should be, should take a massive look at races again. IMO, whatever about differences between subclasses and classes, it's pretty clear the the sometimes huge difference between races / ancestories is a little too absurd, particularly comparing PHB races to a lot of races afterwards (especially in FR / non-setting specific books).

Whether that will mean bringing up ancestories to the standards of say, Deep Gnomes or the many features of Lizardfolk, or bringing them down to something more Half-Elves and making the difference with ancestory feats... is hard to know.

Or going completely crazy and making everything on the power level of Yuan-Ti, but with a drawback like Kobolds (who, without Sunlight Sensitivity to hold them back, are a little nutty)

 

[Scribe]

I think that if the two rules are to co-exist, however, that ASI absolutely can't be a balance consideration for races besides how many boosts there is (so whether a race has a +1, +1, +1, a +2, +1, or a +2).

I dont believe it can be argued that ASI is a balance consideration anyway, but that was discussed for quite a few pages already.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I dont believe it can be argued that ASI is a balance consideration anyway, but that was discussed for quite a few pages already.

That's fair, that would explain why nobody replied to me when I mentioned that.

I might be remembering conversations I've seen on other forms where it has been said to be a balance consideration, which has always felt strange to me.

In particular, with the now errata'd oddities of Kobold and Orcs being the only races / ancestories in 5e to have negative scores. Whatever about Orcs being basically locked out of being Wizards, Kobolds -2 to Strength, while naughty word for Barbarians, doesn't stop them being great in a team with at-least two melee or close-range members and being absolutely ridiculous in any campaign that takes place in areas without a lot of light. Those negatives really didn't balance out the abilities of those two at all, and were clearly a leftover from previous editions.

I admit I am jumping in at points and this has gotten very long and circular. I hope I'm providing some new original thoughts.

As an aside, this thing has inspired me to consider making an all Aarakocra (with a well justified Winged Tiefling Variant campaign) campaign (with Floating ASIs, though players don't have to use them), which does balance the ancestory out by... forcing every PC to be one... and creating a homebrew adventure (and probably fairly homebrew setting) to revolve around flying...

... I promise to ensure there are some land bound melee enemies in that one.

 

[Scribe]

That's fair, that would explain why nobody replied to me when I mentioned that.

I might be remembering conversations I've seen on other forms where it has been said to be a balance consideration, which has always felt strange to me.

In particular, with the now errata'd oddities of Kobold and Orcs being the only races / ancestories in 5e to have negative scores. Whatever about Orcs being basically locked out of being Wizards, Kobolds -2 to Strength, while naughty word for Barbarians, doesn't stop them being great in a team with at-least two melee or close-range members and being absolutely ridiculous in any campaign that takes place in areas without a lot of light. Those negatives really didn't balance out the abilities of those two at all, and were clearly a leftover from previous editions.

I admit I am jumping in at points and this has gotten very long and circular. I hope I'm providing some new original thoughts.

As an aside, this thing has inspired me to consider making an all Aarakocra / base flying speed ancestory campaign (with Floating ASIs, though players don't have to use them), which does balance the ancestory out by... forcing every PC to be one... and creating a homebrew adventure (and probably fairly homebrew setting) to revolve around flying...

... I promise to ensure there are some land bound melee enemies in that one.

I mean not to rehash it too much, but I refuse to accept that ASI are a balance concern when you consider we have.

1. Multiple ways to generate the Stat Array. 1 of which is utterly random.
2. Multiple ways to assign the ASI.
3. No way to account for DM's encounter design, beyond 'recommendation' number of encounters a day.

This is a system that cannot be considered 'balanced', programmatically, imo.

 

[Krachek]

I mean not to rehash it too much, but I refuse to accept that ASI are a balance concern when you consider we have.

1. Multiple ways to generate the Stat Array. 1 of which is utterly random.
2. Multiple ways to assign the ASI.
3. No way to account for DM's encounter design, beyond 'recommendation' number of encounters a day.

This is a system that cannot be considered 'balanced', programmatically, imo.

Rolled stat is presented as the first way to generate stats for a character.
We can ask too much balance past that point.