D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Lyxen]

I shouldn't dive into the orc mess. But, here I go...

X8: Drums on Fire Mountain. You're welcome. Or not.

I'm speaking of 5e, thank you very much for not dragging everything WotC/TSR did in the past back now, including Maztica and such. sigh

Dragging it back to ASIs, can anyone name a D&D orc as well known in general nerd culture as Warcraft's Gul'dan? Because, ol Gul'dan is about as far from the stereotypical orc as you can get, being of below average strength and more of a tricky spellcaster. Is there any D&D orc who even holds a candle to how well known he is?

Would have Gul'dan been a better character with traditional orc ASIs? Because I'd say no. Having a 'This is what the race normally tends to be' is fine, but locking that in no matter anything can take away some fun story stuff.

Only he is not a Warlord, he was a Warlock and nothing tells you that he did not have the orcish ASI which, by the way, are probably very different in WoW...

On the other hand, you have Azog who certainly fits the trope, Bolg, and all the warchiefs from WoW, so many of them, Thrall, Orgrim, Grommash, etc.

 

[Minigiant]

This is a complete lack of imagination, and actually proves the point you were debating by @Lyxen .

I had a 5e half-orc wizard. He was phenomenal. Maybe my favorite character to date for 5e. He had strength, and I could occasionally smack things when they got close. He had athletic ability. So when it came time to climb, jump, swim, lift, etc. I didn't worry. He would get dropped and bounce right back up. He could intimidate. All these things made me play the wizard differently than I would have if I had played an elf. And guess what, he was smart. 15 smart. So better than most.

So he had a niche. You just don't see it or you think the only niche there is is to start with a 16.

I didn't say the 5e orc wizard is unplayable and you can't do anything with it.

I am saying that the orc wizard has little payoff for paying it because the Ability Scores are in imbalance and tropes are too enforced.

Or in direct terms:
If 5e wasn't so simplified, unbalanced, and pushed to tropes, floated ASIs would not be as needed because there would be an advantage to being good in any score for any class.

But...
Str is near useless for pure casters
Int is near useless for pure warriors
Dex is an ultimate score
Con, Wis, and Cha are good for everyone.

It's not powergaming but fixing the system.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I didn't say the 5e orc wizard is unplayable and you can't do anything with it.

I am saying that the orc wizard has little payoff for paying it because the Ability Scores are in imbalanced and tropes are too enforced.

Or in direct terms:
If 5e wasn't so simplified, unbalanced, and pushed to tropes, floated ASIs would not be as needed because there would be a advantage to be good in any score for any class.

But

Str is near useless for pure casters
Int is near useless for pure warriors
Dex is an ultimate score
Con, Wis, and Cha are good for everyone.

It's not powergaming fixing the system.

Yeah, fair. The core issue is that the ability scores are wonky.

Because certain scores are simply better for certain classes, in many cases massively so, they should actually not all cost the same. Rules should define your classes primary and secondary scores, rest are tertiary. Then Increasing your primary cost more points than increasing secondary which in turn cost more than increasing tertiary. That way if you don't max your class' main score, you actually get more of the less important scores.

Like think for a moment how much of other scores you would need to get as a wizard to actually seriously consider lowering your int modifier by one. That's the amount you should get for it to be balanced.

 

[Lyxen]

I didn't say the 5e orc wizard is unplayable and you can't do anything with it.
I am saying that the orc wizard has little payoff for paying it because the Ability Scores are in imbalanced and tropes are too enforced.

You mean, apart from it being a fine character that Scott had fun to play with. But again, for you, "payoff" means a +1 to a stat, please explain how this is not powergaming ?

Or in direct terms:
If 5e wasn't so simplified, unbalanced, and pushed to tropes, floated ASIs would not be as needed because there would be a advantage to be good in any score for any class.

And they are not needed, they are just an option that millions have been playing fine without.

Str is near useless for pure casters
Int is near useless for pure warriors
Dex is an ultimate score
Con, Wis, and Cha are good for everyone.

It's not powergaming fixing the system.

Except it does not need fixing for the millions of people playing it, so please don't call it "fixing", there is no justification for it. However, claiming that "fixing" it is allowing an absolutely unneeded +1 to a stat is powergaming.

 

[Minigiant]

Yep.

Though one thing I have to say, that in 5e being physically competent wizard is disincentivised quite a bit. One thing I actually miss from older editions is how there were not infinite attack cantrips so the wizard actually had to sometimes fight with weapon like peasant when they ran out of spells or wanted to conserve them. In 5e if you're not a class that is specifically designed to fight with a weapon, you might as well save your money and not get one.

This is what I meant.

One might understand High STR would be suboptimal for a wizard compared to high Int. One might get that putting you 15 in Dex or Con would be better than STR.

However the extreme gulf in power loss you get in having a Med-High STR caster or a Med-High INT warrior is a bit much in 5e. You get practically nothing and there are nothing but spells and class features that those classes get that overpower or cancel what benefits you do get.

 

[FrozenNorth]

38.7% players want race to be a determinant of ability scores. 50.6% don't. 10.8% could fall in either or neither camp.

It's striking for me that more people here now prefer not to lock characters into racial stereotypes.

I would be cautious about drawing conclusions about something that is not directly being measured, which I believe is @Scribe ’s point as well.

A poster could dislike ASIs, but still believe in racial minimums and maximums, which would lock characters into racial stereotypes without ASIs (and I believe one of the posters espoused that view). More generally, I suspect that there are quite a few people who dislike ASIs (or who really like floating ASIs) independently of their view of whether orcs or elves should be predisposed to play barbarians or rangers respectively.

 

[Scott Christian]

I am saying that the orc wizard has little payoff for paying it because the Ability Scores are in imbalance and tropes are too enforced.

And I am saying that is incorrect. I just gave you an example. It has little payoff for you because you need a 16 in intelligence to break a trope for some reason. Many players do not.

But...
Str is near useless for pure casters
Int is near useless for pure warriors
Dex is an ultimate score
Con, Wis, and Cha are good for everyone.

The expression; "In my opinion" should come before all of these.

It's not powergaming fixing the system.

Look, I get what you are saying. But the truth is, D&D stats can't be viewed too closely. The second you do, it all falls apart. This includes the need to start with a 16.

 

[Bill Zebub]

OK here goes, for the millionth time by the millionth poster:

Ability stats are genetic. A Golaith or Dwarf or Half-Orc all are naturally stronger and tougher due to evolutionary pressures. They had to be due to the environment they evolved in. And yes, Darwinism works in D&D. A Halfling was never going to overpower some wild animal with brute strength, so they evolved to be quicker, more dexterous. Gnomes, well, they evolved where the smarter of the species thrived. The same process can be applied throughout the now Pokemon universe of all playable species.

Now, are there exceptions to the basic evolutionary pressures? Of course.
And players get to mess with a 27 point buy or Std Array to present those exceptions and differences within a species.

But ONLY after minimum levels of ability stats for that species have been met. See my post from several pages back. People want to apply a floating ASI? OK, knock yourself out. But ONLY after MINIMUM ability scores attributed to that speces are met using the 27 point buy or Std Array. And of course, under NO situation, does a char start at level 1 with any ability over 17.

You seem quite passionate about the way you have chosen to make biology work in your make-believe game world.

 

[glass]

I think making people chose between an ASI and a feat in hindsight was a mistake, it should have been an ASI and a feat.

If they did that, they could not pretend that feats were optional.

Point buy is optional and cannot be assumed.

The thread is about what we like, not what is. And in terms of what I like, it can absolutely be assumed (as a second choice; first choice is just to use ASIs as noted above).

I view the poll results as two camps:

• race determines abilites
• culture determines abilities

I voted in the poll, and I am certainly not in any sort of camp that has "race" or culture determining ability scores. Since I was careful to exclude the red queen race in my post, no one thing would determine anything. Species would contribute, provided it was not called "race". Culture would not.

You're fighting a lost fight. Race = species in D&D from day one and it's not going to change any time soon.

I would be utterly astonished if whenever 6e rolls around it does not swap out race. My preference would be for "species", but "ancestry" and "lineage" work too.

_
glass.

 

[Minigiant]

You mean, apart from it being a fine character that Scott had fun to play with. But again, for you, "payoff" means a +1 to a stat, please explain how this is not powergaming ?

Didn't say the character is fine.

And they are not needed, they are just an option that millions have been playing fine without.

Just because a rule exist and people play the game doesn't mean the rule is good.

The simple spear and the martial trident deal the same damage.
Many fans play 5e AND think some of the official rules are bad.

Except it does not need fixing for the millions of people playing it, so please don't call it "fixing", there is no justification for it. However, claiming that "fixing" it is allowing an absolutely unneeded +1 to a stat is powergaming.

Again you missed my point.

I would take 5e having a better STR and INT score over the +1.
I don't want the 16 INT orc wizard. I want the 15 STR orc wizard to have something worthwhile IMHO to do with their STR.

However in 5e

• Wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks don't get the one STR skill. I think clerics and druids don't get it too.
• The casters have cantrips to attack with that are based on their casting stat
• There are fewer few STR save spells
• Casters have bad weapon selection
• No one really tracks encumbrance

What is a goliath wizard or warlock really to do with his 15 STR?