Level Up (A5E) Do Player Characters Have Average Population Stat Distributions?

[Phoebasss]

But I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with having 'smart species' like the Vulcans in Star Trek.

I will say that even if you don't see anything wrong with it, I think it requires more justification than that, a reason to exist. Not just no reason not to. Because lots of people do see something wrong with it, so it needs more justification than something that no one has an issue with. And I think that mechanically and narratively, its an unnecessary restriction that hurts the game; rather than improving the game with their presence, racial ASIs make for a worse game, mechanically.

 

[glass]

And I have to say this again: ASIs in cultures is a terrible idea. Many fictional cultures resemble or are just direct copy-pastes of real world cultures, assigning mechanical bonuses to such is a recipe for disaster.

QFT, because this is vitally important.

All humans have the same racial write up now, which includes culture just like all the other races do.

Yes, and the whole point of separating out culture is to get away from monocultures and racial essentialism, to reduce the racism.

_
glass.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I will say that even if you don't see anything wrong with it, I think it requires more justification than that, a reason to exist. Not just no reason not to. Because lots of people do see something wrong with it, so it needs more justification than something that no one has an issue with. And I think that mechanically and narratively, its an unnecessary restriction that hurts the game; rather than improving the game with their presence, racial ASIs make for a worse game, mechanically.

Question: if you could accept a -2 penalty to one ability score to gain a +2 to another, would you do it? What if the bonus was +3, or +4 even?

 

[Guest 6801328]

743 posts and I don't think anybody has been swayed in the slightest. Maybe @Cadence.

EDIT: On the other hand, I have gained a better understanding of just how differently some people view RPGs. (Although in the case of @Saelorn and @Lanefan, it's more of an appreciation of the distance between their view and mine; the view itself is still incomprehensible to me.). And it has also helped me clarify my own thinking.

It's kind of like how being married makes you realize that the way your own family does things is not, in fact, as common as you thought when you were single.

 

[TwoSix]

Question: if you could accept a -2 penalty to one ability score to gain a +2 to another, would you do it? What if the bonus was +3, or +4 even?

That's kind of a power gamer's dream, so sure.

 

[Phoebasss]

Question: if you could accept a -2 penalty to one ability score to gain a +2 to another, would you do it? What if the bonus was +3, or +4 even?

Sure, always. +2 to main score is always better than 2 in either int or strength. Likewise for +3 and +4. 5e just isn't build in a way that encourages ample use of all of your scores.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I will say that even if you don't see anything wrong with it, I think it requires more justification than that, a reason to exist. Not just no reason not to. Because lots of people do see something wrong with it, so it needs more justification than something that no one has an issue with. And I think that mechanically and narratively, its an unnecessary restriction that hurts the game; rather than improving the game with their presence, racial ASIs make for a worse game, mechanically.

I don't really need the gnomes to exist. Like does anybody? But I don't agree that species based ASIs make the game worse, to me they make it better. It just is that we are looking for different things. Granted, I don't think the current species with their exact bonuses or the even the current character generation overall are as good as they could be, but the basic concept of different species having different capabilities and that being reflected in their ability scores is a definite plus for me an not having it would make me like the game a lot less.

 

[Phoebasss]

One 4 Strength god of whirling death coming up.

 

[Phoebasss]

I don't really need gnomes to exist. Like does anybody? But I don't agree that species based ASIs make the game worse, to me they make it better. It just is that we are looking for different things. Granted, I don't think the current species with their exact bonuses or the even the current character generation overall are as good as they could be, but the basic concept of different species having different capabilities and that being reflected in their ability scores is a definite plus for me an not having it would make me like the game a lot less.

For reference, the thing I care about is always going to be player choice and the ability to tell a variety of stories in a compelling way. Something racial ASIs make more difficult because it means more half-orc barbarians show up to my table and I have yet to see a half-orc wizard at my table. Which is a story I'm interested in helping to tell.

 

[Cadence]

In other same, races are smarter than others and no one bats an eye at it. Why is it an issue with D&D.

The reason for having physical ASIs certainly is more obviously apparent. But I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with having 'smart species' like the Vulcans in Star Trek. Granted, having 'dumb species' probably is something that would be best to be avoided.

One reason feels like its an easier trap to walk into with real life stereotypes used over the centuries.

Just finished reading the intro to Treebeard to my 10yo last night (and read about Gandalf at the door to Moria earlier in the year, and there's another old character in the Dread Empire that I'm rereading). One of the things about a lot of the old really smart characters is that a lot of memory takes longer to sift through. Is that's how elves would be? In past editions that had them, would one alternative to a +2 to Int be to give a +1 bonus in any situation where they could take 10 or 20?