D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Minigiant]

I used only the word because you did in an effort to slander it

There is nothing wrong with ultraconservatism.

The isse is that you can't say "Thee are thousands of D&D settings" and "D&D is for everyone" but lock races into strict archetypes.

The burger joints sells chicken, veggie and fish sandwiches for more customers.

If you sell only burgers, the vegetarians won't enter.

And then, like any setting, you are free to do whatever you want. And "thousands" is not "any" either.

That's the point.

You can't say you supposed tons of settings but lack rules to.
Races that exist in multiple official settings are not the same.

And this is a silly argument, floating ASIs do absolutely nothing for racial stereotypes, since the species/races are untouched in all the worlds of D&D. Orcs are still savage with an Int of 7.

That's the point. The races shouldn't be untouched.

Exactly, but why are you focussing on orcs ? Because you have exactly the same problem with ANY race that does not offer the bonus to Int (and it's actually most of them).

Because orcs is most iconic for their racial Strength bonus.

I could use Minotaurs, Goliaths, Dwarves, Leonine etc

Notice that none of these races are known for producing arcanists in D&D.

Use can go the opposite direction with halflings, gnomes,and goblins for heavy armor warriors.

So, basically, not only are you are making this political AGAIN by talking ONLY about the orcs, but it just goes to show that you ONLY want to play race/class combination that gives you the maximum BONUS. What is it but powergaming ?

It's not political. Why are you brining up politics?

Whereas, since the start of 5e, no one at our tables except our few remaining powergamers (easily identified because of that, by the way) has had any trouble playing other combinations because they were cool, whether they were halfling warlocks, dwarven mages or orc bards.

It's less trouble.

Like I said,5e made playing your class easy.

What 5e did however is made it harder to mingle your racial aspects with your class aspects if you are not playing a stereotype.

The Minotaur rogue can't use their horns to sneak attack.
The Minotaur wizard can't channel lightning out their horns.
The Minotaur cleric can't enchant their horns with divine power then attack with them.

If the races is just STR and Horns, then STR and Horns who be tilted to the based character archetypes.
MOAR HORN SUPPORT!

And here you are, fully unveiled, because who cares about crunch ? Yes, it starts with "powergame" and ends with "owergamer".

So, be happy, you can powergame all you want with the options in Tasha, just stop pretending that it's any other concern than this.

There it is.

I play D&D to play a game with shared rules with other people.

If rules don't matter then I don't need to play D&D at all to shoot fire and lightning from my minotaur horns.

 

[Lyxen]

I don't find the game blander, just as I do not find human cultures bland even though they are all human. There is plenty of diversity and vibrancy in our single species - and that is down to cultures - not genetically thicker or thinner biceps.

And then, would you deny that inherent species/race capabilities, like having magical powers or having different strengths and weaknesses in terms of basic stats would certainly be a huge factor in adaptation to the environment but also in terms of culture ?

That's the problem with all these reasonings, they don't recognise these basic facts, because all they care about is:

• Being frightenend of translating real-world stereotypes and being accused of racism.
• "Equality in technical terms" because otherwise people complain about balance and powergamers whine about the lack of options (since they only want to play the top 10% of class/race power anyway).

They strap on culture at a later point once all the blandness has gone in, and then find themselves unable to do anything at that point because, well, it's just bland.

Compare to Runequest, which goes the exact different way, may races/species extremely diverse by tying them initially to runes, giving them distinctive magic, abilities and stats, seeing what various environment they adapt to because of that, and then deduce the culture that this has produced over time. This gives strong, vibrant cultures, where people are not afraid to play a primitive nomad from an inhuman species.

 

[Lyxen]

Racial tension between playable races has generally been dropped from the settings. If you look at many countries in FR or Eberron, they are all extremely diverse and there is few (if any) example of resentment from a part of the majority group against a minority group. I'd say that people in fantasy setting have a level of enlightenment that makes our societies in real-life to shame.

And it's stupid in a game where "You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama." Drama comes from conflict. If you have all the people on your world being gentler and more understanding than mother Theresa, what stories are you going to tell ?

Races/species, religious, political, economical, cosmoslogical conflicts are needed to spark epic stories. Now, if we could just get rid of people who think that we cannot distinguish between our fantasy and the real world, or worse, who think that we, on purpose, import real-world tropes in our fantasy to make fun of them... Because do some people really think that this is what is happening ?

 

[Lyxen]

There is nothing wrong with ultraconservatism.

Yeah, right, I'm pretty sure lots of people would be offended if I told them that they are one.

But, in any case, I don't consider myself to be one, so please leave that word aside for good.

The isse is that you can't say "Thee are thousands of D&D settings" and "D&D is for everyone" but lock races into strict archetypes.

Why ?

The burger joints sells chicken, veggie and fish sandwiches for more customers.
If you sell only burgers, the vegetarians won't enter.

So what ? Now burgers places mandatorily have to serve for everyone ? There are lots of people who don't like D&D. You don't have to please everybody, you know, or to serve everybody. It might be your interest to do so, or the only way to survive in this world, so you might be making some changes, but does it mean that they are good changes for people who liked you before ? There is no guarantee of that, it all depends who you want to cater to.

But the most silly thing in that argument is that you know what ? With D&D, you can already have your cake and eat it, either with the options of by designing yourself.

That's the point.
You can't say you supposed tons of settings but lack rules to.
Races that exist in multiple official settings are not the same.

And for me, the races in the PH are just those that exist in most D&D settings. Why do you insist that it's more ? D&D is already very generic enough, and incredibly easy to customise.

That's the point. The races shouldn't be untouched.

And here it comes, the "blandification wave" is coming, that require all fantasy species to have the same stats, because otherwise it's racist and unfair... sigh

Because orcs is most iconic for their racial Strength bonus.
I could use Minotaurs, Goliaths, Dwarves, Leonine etc
Notice that none of these races are known for producing arcanists in D&D.

And should all races be able to be arcanists in all universes of the game ? Clearly, you have not read or watched a lot of fantasy. These arbitrary limitations are part of the genre, and what pushes heroes to become heroes, while antagonists fail.

It's not political. Why are you brining up politics?

Because, apart from powergaming, it's the main reason of the activism of people around Tasha's racial ASIs.

Like I said,5e made playing your class easy.

Oh yes, because not having a +1 makes playing it so much harder, year, right.... Are you really reading what you write ?

What 5e did however is made it harder to mingle your racial aspects with your class aspects if you are not playing a stereotype.

ONLY IN TERMS OF THE MIGHTY POWER OF THE +1.

It's ONLY harder if you want that +1. Pure, simple, powergaming at its base level.

Once more, there was no "harder" in playing all the characters that I listed for you, they were extremely fun functional characters that their players enjoyed very much.

But you are absolutely unable to enjoy them because you are lacking the +1, you are afraid of showing that you are not optimising technically, that you are not playing skillfully. Nothing more. Or maybe it's just jealousy of the guy having the +2 when you have only the +2 ?

The Minotaur rogue can't use their horns to sneak attack.
The Minotaur wizard can't channel lightning out their horns.
The Minotaur cleric can't enchant their horns with divine power then attack with them.

If the races is just STR and Horns, then STR and Horns who be tilted to the based character archetypes.
MOAR HORN SUPPORT!

MORE POWAAAAHHHH !

Q.E.D.

There it is.
I play D&D to play a game with shared rules with other people.
If rules don't matter then I don't need to play D&D at all to shoot fire and lightning from my minotaur horns.

I'm sorry, but what does this have the slightest thing to do with "And here you are, fully unveiled, because who cares about crunch ? Yes, it starts with "powergame" and ends with "owergamer".
So, be happy, you can powergame all you want with the options in Tasha, just stop pretending that it's any other concern than this." ? In both case, there are rules...

 

[clearstream]

And then, would you deny that inherent species/race capabilities, like having magical powers or having different strengths and weaknesses in terms of basic stats would certainly be a huge factor in adaptation to the environment but also in terms of culture ?

Magical powers, certainly - those are like access to more powerful languages or technologies - but not basic stats necessarily. And I am not arguing for removing magical powers from races.

That's the problem with all these reasonings, they don't recognise these basic facts, because all they care about is:

• Being frightenend of translating real-world stereotypes and being accused of racism.
• "Equality in technical terms" because otherwise people complain about balance and powergamers whine about the lack of options (since they only want to play the top 10% of class/race power anyway).

Frightened has nothing to do with it. I would say one must be more courageous to avoid stereotypes and organic racism, than less.

I suppose when it comes to balance, my concerns are driven by my desire for immersion, where I see narrative as importantly emergent from - driven by - mechanics. I am with those who favour players having access to mechanically-defined fiats over the narrative. That's how and why D&D is a game, and not only shared story-telling. Therefore I value balance, and not for the reasons that concern you.

Compare to Runequest, which goes the exact different way, may races/species extremely diverse by tying them initially to runes, giving them distinctive magic, abilities and stats, seeing what various environment they adapt to because of that, and then deduce the culture that this has produced over time. This gives strong, vibrant cultures, where people are not afraid to play a primitive nomad from an inhuman species.

RQ is a great game - I ran it for years using Griffin Mountain, Trollpak, Pavis, The Big Rubble, both cults books - and loved it. But then, I've changed. Things I overlooked back then because they didn't affect me, I might not overlook now. So I honestly don't know how I would feel about RQ were I to return to it.

 

[Lyxen]

Magical powers, certainly - those are like access to more powerful languages or technologies - but not basic stats necessarily. And I am not arguing for removing magical powers from races.

It's funny, you don't think that being a goliath compared to a halfling (no magical powers there) would change the resulting adaptation to the environment and therefore the culture ? Even would do much more so that the occasional use of a cantrip ?

Frightened has nothing to do with it. I would say one must be more courageous to avoid stereotypes and organic racism, than less.

No, sorry, today, where the true courage lies is in resisting the current that criticise anything linked to races and even simple history and who demands that people of yesterday be judged with the standards of today. Just going along with the movement demands absolutely zero courage at all.

I suppose when it comes to balance, my concerns are driven by my desire for immersion, where I see narrative as importantly emergent from - driven by - mechanics. I am with those who favour players having access to mechanically-defined fiats over the narrative. That's how and why D&D is a game, and not only shared story-telling. Therefore I value balance, and not for the reasons that concern you.

It's sure that a +1 on some rolls for some characters is a huge balance issue....

RQ is a great game - I ran it for years using Griffin Mountain, Trollpak, Pavis, The Big Rubble, both cults books - and loved it. But then, I've changed. Things I overlooked back then because they didn't affect me, I might not overlook now. So I honestly don't know how I would feel about RQ were I to return to it.

Your loss... Because, you know, there are no inherently bad things in Runequest (it was actually funny seeing someone on this thread squealing about shaman supposedly being discriminated against when Stafford was actually a practicing shaman, just goes to show how misguided most of these efforts usually are), and it's being left alone only because the people tackling D&D are doing it purely for their own visibility, no one would care about a nich game like Runequest.

 

[clearstream]

It's funny, you don't think that being a goliath compared to a halfling (no magical powers there) would change the resulting adaptation to the environment and therefore the culture ? Even would do much more so that the occasional use of a cantrip ?

Give them a relevant magical power then, as has been suggested by others.

No, sorry, today, where the true courage lies is in resisting the current that criticise anything linked to races and even simple history and who demands that people of yesterday be judged with the standards of today. Just going along with the movement demands absolutely zero courage at all.

Where we might agree is that going along with that which is powerful and prevalent, requires little courage.

Your loss... Because, you know, there are no inherently bad things in Runequest (it was actually funny seeing someone on this thread squealing about shaman supposedly being discriminated against when Stafford was actually a practicing shaman, just goes to show how misguided most of these efforts usually are), and it's being left alone only because the people tackling D&D are doing it purely for their own visibility, no one would care about a nich game like Runequest.

Loss? I offered no decision on whether I would enjoy it now or not. Griffin Mountain was, and perhaps still is, one of the two best designed modules for any game system. (The other is Masks of Nyarlathotep, for CoC, also Chaosium.) From memory, the Balazarings are respectfully treated (and nicely contrasted with the Lunar Empire!) With trolls, the matriarchy stepped away from lazy traditions of the fantasy genre.

What made these peoples interesting wasn't 'genetic' assumptions about player character ability scores.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not fine with me.

There's so much race-based unpleasantness and not just unwillingness to examine it but overt hostility toward doing so, I don't need it baked into the mechanics.

It would be easier to take this argument seriously if it was consistently applied. I am wiling to consider that it might indeed be problematic to depict fantasy species having different capabilities. But then it is problematic regardless of how exactly you mechanically represent it, or indeed even if it was mere fluff. It applies to ASIs and traits equally, it even applies to the lore.

Representing ones desire to have specific type of game a mechanic as social issue comes across as disingenuous, and frankly insulting to those who actually care about social issues.

 

[clearstream]

It's sure that a +1 on some rolls for some characters is a huge balance issue....

That's rather underselling it.

+1 on Dex is equivalent for many characters as having the Defense fighting style for free, gaining +1 on initiative, +1 on every attack chance and +1 on every damage roll, and +1 on highly relevant skills and tools such as stealth and thieves' tools. Seeing as the latter are often opposed by passive thresholds, the flat add is more beneficial than appears on surface.

For a glamour bard, at 5th level +1 charisma is another 8 temp-HP and opportunity-attack free reaction move they can grant to an ally. It's another humanoid you can enthrall. It's always another use of inspiration. It's a boost to the chance of success of almost all their spells, particularly vicious mockery, which they will be spamming. And it boosts often-powerful skills such as persuasion. It's another spell 'in mind' each day.

For a bladesinger, +1 Int is a boost to AC equal to the Defense fighting style, and an increased chance to maintain concentration. Because of the way that maths works, AC from Int can be multiplied through spells like shield and blur to give exponentially better ability to tank: better than the best martial. It's another spell in mind.

These examples are considering only the placement of say +2, but all races have a second boost, and that also matters. So our high-elf bladesinger can gain all the benefits I described of +1 on Dex with all the benefits I described of +1 on Int. A drow bladesinger gets half of that. A dwarf bladesinger, none of it. Seeing as bladesingers have extra attack, the +1 from Dex on attack and damage applies twice a turn and using green-flame blade they can add their +1 from Int to the damage dealt by one of those attacks.

To characterise it as '+1 on some rolls' feels like rhetoric. From other posts I think you understand the game mechanics better than that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's rather underselling it.

+1 on Dex is equivalent for many characters as having the Defense fighting style for free, gaining +1 on initiative, +1 on every attack chance and +1 on every damage roll, and +1 on highly relevant skills and tools such as stealth and thieves' tools. Seeing as the latter are often opposed by passive thresholds, the flat add is more beneficial than appears on surface.

For a glamour bard, at 5th level +1 charisma is another 8 temp-HP and opportunity-attack free reaction move they can grant to an ally. It's another humanoid you can enthrall. It's always another use of inspiration. It's a boost to the chance of success of almost all their spells, particularly vicious mockery, which they will be spamming. And it boosts often-powerful skills such as persuasion. It's another spell 'in mind' each day.

For a bladesinger, +1 Int is a boost to AC equal to the Defense fighting style, and an increased chance to maintain concentration. Because of the way that maths works, AC from Int can be multiplied through spells like shield and blur to give exponentially better ability to tank: better than the best martial. It's another spell in mind.

These examples are considering only the placement of say +2, but all races have a second boost, and that also matters. So our high-elf bladesinger can gain all the benefits I described of +1 on Dex with all the benefits I described of +1 on Int. A drow bladesinger gets half of that. A dwarf bladesinger, none of it. Seeing as bladesingers have extra attack, the +1 from Dex on attack and damage applies twice a turn and using green-flame blade they can add their +1 from Int to the damage dealt by one of those attacks.

To characterise it as '+1 on some rolls' feels like rhetoric. From other posts I think you understand the game mechanics better than that.

So if we accept that having even one point difference in your main ability modifier is an unacceptable balance issue, I have to ask why even let players assign ability scores let alone randomise them? If everyone always has to have the same score in their main stat, why not then just make those bonuses part of the class?

It is evident that any variance is unacceptable to a significant portion of player base, and if we accept that as the stance the game should be build around, then I have to conclude that the whole concept of ability scores is fundamentally nonviable.