D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Scott Christian]

This was brought up in the last (locked, I think) thread on this topic, but the underlying problem is the simplistic design of D&D, or perhaps more generally the (necessary?) simplicity of TTRPGs. For example, a highly intelligent fighter should be just as effective in combat as a very strong fighter, but in different ways.

But the game doesn't work that way. Mechanically, it's simply better to be a strong fighter than an intelligent one. ("Blah blah blah other two pillars blah blah blah." Yeah, sure. Have fun with that.)

This is true and good. But the primary problem that arises with this style is inevitably, one type of fighter is a bit stronger. Then it's a war or race to improve the other type, then that one becomes stronger and a group complains about their fighter now is worthless or ineffective.

I find people always think they want balance, when often what they want is uniqueness.

 

[Minigiant]

Certainly that only matters on if you care about character power though? Like sure, investing in 'wrong' scores makes your character weaker. But that is only a problem if you see a character being weaker as a problem. Theoretically I wish things were better balanced, but then again, this is not a competitive game, so it is not such a big deal. It actually doesn't matter if some characters are not as powerful as others, as long as the more powerful ones don't completely overshadow the others.

Overall I value verisimilitude over balance, so if it necessitates that goliaths are better barbarians than halflings, then that is fine by me. Granted, ideally there would be agility-based barbarian build that would let halflings to be effective and fierce anklebiters without being bizarrely strong superhobbits.

Powergaming implies game or character design for high levels of power.

I want more options for characters not having most powerful characters. Having active use of your chosen good ability scores while playing a PC instead of waiting or forcing a DM to trigger them.

The conversation is because of the slow trot of classes getting benefits for ability scores beyond their prime.

 

[Minigiant]

This is true and good. But the primary problem that arises with this style is inevitably, one type of fighter is a bit stronger. Then it's a war or race to improve the other type, then that one becomes stronger and a group complains about their fighter now is worthless or ineffective.

I find people always think they want balance, when often what they want is uniqueness.

Where is this race?

I think most fans are fine with the half orc STR fighter or the elf DEX fighter being the best.
The issue is the 14 Cha Tiefling fighter being so far below them if you don't powergame.

 

[Maxperson]

Anthropologist here: the real-world range of human size doesn't seem to be big enough to make a noticeable difference. There's no evidence that the Danish, being the tallest people in Europe, are different from other Europeans because of how tall they are. Or that the Maasi being tall makes them good herders (it's just as likely that being unmounted cowboys makes them tall, since height is heavy nutrition- and exercise-dependent).

But the height difference is order of magnitude less than the halfling to goliath gap, so I don't think you can use real-world evidence as a guide.

What about the smaller races? This is my imagination here(so based on nothing solid), but it seems to me that smaller peoples would be more likely to develop cultures where warfare was something to be avoided, so more gatherer and agricultural, which would affect other practices and traditions. And that the taller than average peoples would be more apt to fight than flight, prize strength and those things would affect their practices and traditions.

 

[Minigiant]

What about the smaller races? This is my imagination here(so based on nothing solid), but it seems to me that smaller peoples would be more likely to develop cultures where warfare was something to be avoided, so more gatherer and agricultural, which would affect other practices and traditions. And that the taller than average peoples would be more apt to fight than flight, prize strength and those things would affect their practices and traditions.

Warlike tendencies more has to due with having enemy threats than size.

If anything, bigger races would be more peaceful because they'd quickly get the area needed to survive then mellow out because no one wants to attack them.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This is true and good. But the primary problem that arises with this style is inevitably, one type of fighter is a bit stronger. Then it's a war or race to improve the other type, then that one becomes stronger and a group complains about their fighter now is worthless or ineffective.

I find people always think they want balance, when often what they want is uniqueness.

Yeah, prefect balance is unachievable.

The solution, I think, is to design differences that can't be objectively compared. One approach gets you bonus apples, the other approach gets you bonus oranges. Then players can rationalize whichever approach they prefer.

Which is why I personally prefer well-designed racial abilities, rather than straight primary stat increases.

 

[Scott Christian]

Where is this race?

You're joking, right?

 

[jmartkdr2]

What about the smaller races? This is my imagination here(so based on nothing solid), but it seems to me that smaller peoples would be more likely to develop cultures where warfare was something to be avoided, so more gatherer and agricultural, which would affect other practices and traditions. And that the taller than average peoples would be more apt to fight than flight, prize strength and those things would affect their practices and traditions.

More likely: as they get better, more reliable access to food, they get taller, and use the weapons best adapted to penetrating their opponent's armor.

The genetic limits on height are a minor variable. For example, in the 20's Franz Boaz noted that the children of European immigrants to the US were almost universally taller that their parents, regardless of where in Europe they immigrated from. At the time, being poor in a city in the US meant more and better food than being poor in a rural village in Europe.

Basically, if you moves a group of !Kung (The shortest tribe in Africa, IIRC) to Northern Kenya and had them live like Maasi, they wouldn't change how they herded, they'd just get taller as their diet switched to more red meat and tubers. The main cultural shift would be towards longer bows and thinking about cattle a lot more.

There's some genetics to height, but it's mostly nurture, in humans. Which, presumably, wouldn't apply to halflings living in the mountain alongside goliaths.

If I had to guess: one of the bigger externally-selective differences would be the relative size of animals. To a halfling, a horse is huge and way too big to ride like humans to; you'd be unable to grip with your legs. You have to ride them like humans ride elephants, with howdahs or some other kind of platform. You could put a whole house on the back of an actual elephant, and you could comfortably ride many smaller animals like dogs, goats, or ostriches. All of which do not work quite like horses, which would have knock-on effects on a number of things, like trade, war, and the meaning of wealth.

Goliaths would be hard-pressed to find any kind of riding animal, so I'd expect them to just not do that. They also wouldn't use many beasts of burden given that the ones who are big enough to be worthwhile are also too big to go many places (they need a lot of food) and are a lot slower than horses. So you'd have an entire unmounted culture, who'd learn to live with only things you can personally carry (or maybe put on a big goat), which in turn starts having knock-on effects.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

This post is made under the assumption that every character of a certain class ever created is going to have the same highest stat, same second highest stat, etc....

My absolute favorite character type (since 3e) has been a cleric with STR first, CON 2nd, and WIS 3rd. I am able to do this by basically giving up on trying to cast spells that have saves in return for being very fightery.

I think you are hyper focused on the idea that with floating ASI every character is going to look the same that you aren't allowing yourself to see the other characters it opens up the door for.

 

[Minigiant]

You're joking, right?

Partially.

The point is that the strongest race-class-subclass combos are mostly the same. The only ones that are not the ones that were purposeful design fixes (dex race gloomstalker, Cha race divine soul and hexblade) or powercreep the same concepts (peace and twilight clerics).