D&D 5E I think I prefer backgrounds in 2014

[Necropolitan]

Wait, you only allow the character with the highest bonus to participate?

5e is designed so that characters can try to do things regardless of their stats. There is no reason why a character with a -1 persuasion can't attempt to persuade an NPC.

You completely misread my comment and should stop telling people how to run their games either way.

The point was encouraging players who otherwise wouldn't have their characters attempt something to do so by giving a less-able character an advantage since the check's in-line with their Background.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Tying ASIs to Species is completely pointless, because it doesn't actually accomplish what people think it does. It merely gives some people the impression of what it is they think they want.

A +2 to an ability score does not make any creature appreciably more of that thing percentage-wise because of one simple thing-- that stat gets added to a d20 roll. Every test of a person's Dexterity (for example) is not just the ability score modifier... it also include upwards of 20 additional points of d20 roll modifier on top of it.

A person with a 14 Dexterity (+2 mod) has an effective Dexterity for all uses of that ability between 3-22. That's a character's actual Dexterity to do things-- 3-22. And a person with a 12 Dexterity (+1 mod) has an effective Dexterity for all uses of that ability of 2-21. And when we compare those two... we notice all the massive amount of different ways where the "less dexterous" character will easily defeat the supposedly "more dexterous" character in all manner of Dexterity checks. And that will happen all the time.

Which means that the supposed "necessity" of giving elves a +2 ASI to Dexterity (for example) in order to represent an elf's great grace and agility... only provides a 5% boost. That's it. An elf is 5% more graceful and agile than a human (or any other Species). On any check, it's virtually a coin flip as to who's more agile, the elf or someone else. And people think that's actually meaningful? Nope. Not even close. If people are imagining that all elves are lithe Legolas-like creatures-- doing things like flipping upwards onto galloping horses and surfing down staircases... things that no other creatures in the world could possibly do... according to D&D math the dwarf Gimli has merely just a 5% less chance of doing the exact same thing. ASIs and D&D math do not produce the narrative our imaginations think all these Species are meant to have.

One would say that the goliath needs to have a +2 to their Strength score in the Species write-up in order to differentiate it from a tiny halfling? Well... even with that, there's still a pretty easy chance during point-buy character creation that you're going to get a starting halfling in a particular campaign with a +3 STR mod with all their STR-checks rolling between 4-23... while your supposedly "massive" goliath having a +0 STR mod and rolling all their STR-checks between 1-20. Which means that +2 ASI one supposedly needed to have in the Species write-up to really show off the size disparity between goliaths and those tiny halflings has not done jack. All those times where the halfling is rolling 15s, 16s, 18s etc. and the goliath rolls 1s, 2s and 3s... getting absolutely blown out of the water on Strength checks. That ASI bonus due to Species did absolutely nothing to match the math to our narrative expectations and imaginations.

At the end of the day... in order for this game to work as a game it will never create the math situation required to match our expectations in terms of narrative. It can't. Because otherwise the game falls apart. So no one actually needs Species to include ASIs because they just don't accomplish what they think they do.

I am not convinced by this line of reasoning. If the bonus is so insignificant, then why it is so super important for so many people to get it? Many felt that unless the species got a bonus to the class' main score, it was unplayable as that class. So certainly the bonus feels like a big impact to many, in which case it is fine way to represent a big difference in the fiction.

And of course the game could be built so that far bigger differences in ability scores were fine, it just isn't. Though actually with the biggest area of contention, the strength, it is. You could cap halflings at strength eight and the game would work just fine, as they could just play dex-based melee builds. Barbarian is the only class which doesn't have a good dex build, and that could easily be fixed.

And I've said it many times before, but the ability scores being so strongly determined by the class is a big flaw in the game, regardless of the species issue. It is boring that every wizard has same int, every rogue same dex, every barbarian same strength etc. We are given the illusion of choosing the ability scores to represent the individual capabilities of our chracter, yet in reality the stats are in large part dictated by the class.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am not convinced by this line of reasoning. If the bonus is so insignificant, then why it is so super important for so many people to get it?

Many people are not as adept at math/statistics as they think they are.

Many felt that unless the species got a bonus to the class' main score, it was unplayable as that class.

Yes. See above.
Although of course, for weapon using classes, dealing a minimum of 3 damage instead of 4 damage feels bad. And back in the days, when small people could only use lower maximum damage weapons, the maximum was also significantly lowered.
And since the brain is biased when remembering events, those low values have an impact on combining species and classes.

So certainly the bonus feels like a big impact to many, in which case it is fine way to represent a big difference in the fiction.

Yes. Although in 5e the difference was always low (except for small two handed weapon users).

And of course the game could be built so that far bigger differences in ability scores were fine, it just isn't.

It totally is.

Though actually with the biggest area of contention, the strength, it is. You could cap halflings at strength eight and the game would work just fine, as they could just play dex-based melee builds. Barbarian is the only class which doesn't have a good dex build, and that could easily be fixed.

Even the barbarian could have nice dex basd builds. Higher AC is good. Being good at big range is good.
And advantage and rage bonus on melee attacks will still allow you to make good use of str.
So a 13, 16, 16, 8, 12, 10 build will soon be cool. Take a longbow and a maul and get great weapon mastery ASAP.
Before you get it, just use two short swords or short sword and scimitar.

And I've said it many times before, but the ability scores being so strongly determined by the class is a big flaw in the game, regardless of the species issue.

I tend to agree here.

It is boring that every wizard has same int, every rogue same dex, every barbarian same strength etc.

I have yet to see that. It is just a self imposed restriction.

We are given the illusion of choosing the ability scores to represent the individual capabilities of our chracter, yet in reality the stats are in large part dictated by the class.

Yes, they are. But you can really do something different with a bit of creativity.

I have playtested a goliath valor bard (2014) in the christmas solo adventure 5 years ago.
It worked very well. (Cold resistance came in handy vs the dragon, which I seriously miss in the 2014 rules).

 

[mamba]

I am not convinced by this line of reasoning. If the bonus is so insignificant, then why it is so super important for so many people to get it?

because people are not particularly rational, which should not come as much of a surprise really...

And I've said it many times before, but the ability scores being so strongly determined by the class is a big flaw in the game, regardless of the species issue. It is boring that every wizard has same int, every rogue same dex, every barbarian same strength etc.

at least it makes more sense to me than e.g. having the Wizard being based on Strength... if you want that, there is always DC20 for you

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Many people are not as adept at math/statistics as they think they are.

because people are not particularly rational, which should not come as much of a surprise really...

putting aside the blatant insults here - im currently playing a level 9 character with a 16 in both attacking stats (half-caster).

i feel it. i feel it a lot. and i felt it before level 8, too. that 5-10% matters a lot more then you'd think it might.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

putting aside the blatant insults here - im currently playing a level 9 character with a 16 in both attacking stats (half-caster).

I don't want to insult anyone. But this sadly is fact.* Statistics and feel are sometimes far apart. I also don't trust my gut feeling on statistic matters. Had to learn that too.

i feel it. i feel it a lot. and i felt it before level 8, too. that 5-10% matters a lot more then you'd think it might.

Yes. You certainly feel that. This is what I explained later.
Did you sit down and made list of the times where it actually mattered?

Our brain is not good at assessing it without making a list. One remembers the times where one misses by one point a lot more. And often, missing by two is might also get associated with your lower score when in reality a +1 bonus would not have mattered at all...

but of course, depending on your luck, you could miss the one attack on the boss that had killed them. But this is just as likely as hitting with a nat 20. Somehow "always" happens when you expect it last...

also. Did you note the times where your secondary stat that is 2 points higher than on an "optimized" build made a difference?**

So please don't take it as an insult and just as a reminder that gut feeling and statistics often don't align.

*just go to reddit.
A few month ago the wrong answer for an integral had 10 times as many upvotes as the correct answer, because people thought sqrt(x^2)=x... which is wrong. With insults added for the people who are correct. So they mixed up symmetry to the origin with symmetry to the y-axis.
(Not the only case where reddit is very wrong regarding math/statistic things). And it is not only reddit.

**
In 3e we had a bard with highest stat 14. And no combat stat above 10. And we made a list who was the highest damage dealer. And guess what. It was the bard who buffed his bardic inspire courage to +4 attack/damage (I think). And when we ascribed any hit from the ranger that had otherwised missed to the bard, the bard was on top.

 

[Horwath]

Backgrounds previously were a low-impact RP feature - given that they consisted primarily of Ribbon abilities and could be fully customized as a baseline rule. One or two tool proficiencies and a background feature isn't going to make or break a character.

Now they've got baked in optimization - picking a fun-for-RP background necessarily means that you are taking a hit on optimization. A nonstandard background has a huge opportunity cost. Something like a Sailor Wizard or Soldier Druid is going to suffer significantly.

then the custom background is perfect.

you write story of your character as you want and have RP ideas that you want and you pick "background" features that you need so your character can work as you want it.

 

[Clint_L]

I am never going to understand the complaints against biological essentialism. These creatures are not humans, they are their own species. Even within our own species, our extinct cousins the neanderthals were much stronger than us.

Here’s a comparison of the height and weight of a median Goliath versus a halfling:

Goliath
Median Height: 7 feet 6 inches (7'6") = 2.29 meters

Median Weight: 340 pounds = 154 kg

Halfling
Median Height: 3 feet (3'0") = 0.91 meters

Median Weight: 40 pounds = 18 kg

Comparison:
A Goliath is about 2.5 times taller and 8.5 times heavier than a halfling.

It just make sense that Goliaths would be stronger than Halflings

I can understand the argument that it's not fun in a game sense, and not necessary. And that people would rather be free to choose the combinations of Species and Classes they want without being penalized for it.

The same can be said of backgrounds to a lesser degree. It makes sense that a blacksmith is on average stronger than a scholar. And that a scholar is on average more intelligent, as in better educated, than a blacksmith. But it is not necessarily fun either. And can hamper or spark creativity.

I think there are good arguments both for and against floating ASI

Yeah, but if you're going to get all technical about it, it doesn't make sense that a goliath would be just 5-10% stronger than a halfling, does it? I mean, if you're going to to go for real world accuracy, you're going to need halflings to have a strength of 3 and goliaths to have a strength of 25+. Which they will need just to move themselves about all day long. And I wouldn't expect them to be leaping across wide crevasses; the landing alone will risk breaking their ankles. So you'll have to have special jumping rules. Not to mention food; rations are going to take up a LOT more weight and space for a goliath. And so on.

Also, let's say we've decided to make strength accurately reflect real world biology. In that case, what about intelligence? Dexterity? Charisma? Wisdom? Constitution? Pretty hard to justify modifiers to any of those based on real world physics and biology.

Giving a goliath a +2 to strength over a halfling (which the halfling can eventually make up with ASIs if they want anyone) is the barest nod to realism. Why bother? All it does is deincentivise certain class/species combinations at level 1, because gamers gonna game. Let the players decide what makes sense to them. If having a super strong halfling doesn't make sense to you...don't make one?

As for backgrounds, I just assume that anyone who cares much will just use the "create your own" option, so I'm not too fussed about them.

 

[Horwath]

And I've said it many times before, but the ability scores being so strongly determined by the class is a big flaw in the game, regardless of the species issue. It is boring that every wizard has same int, every rogue same dex, every barbarian same strength etc. We are given the illusion of choosing the ability scores to represent the individual capabilities of our chracter, yet in reality the stats are in large part dictated by the class.

this is true 99% of the time.
and yeah, you can now and then play some off character that does not have primary ability maxed by 12th level latest, but those are rare, I've played those, fun in RP part, bad at combat.

mostly abilities diversify in tertiary abilities.

you have your primary at 20(or how high level permits), your secondary is at 16, maybe 14, Constitution is 14 in 80-90% of the time. rest is 12 or 16(maybe more at later levels) and then you really play with last 3 abilities.

depending on how much you spent on CON and secondary, it might be any combination of 8,10 and 12.


off topic:
honestly, ability score should ONLY be used for ABILITY CHECKS.

attack, damage, saves, AC, DC should all be replaced by proficiency bonus.

then there is no pressure to "optimize" for combat but more for flavor.


off topic 2:
delete CON from the game.
remove 13 from array and 5pts from pointbuy pool.
give all classes +2 HP per level. move CON saves to STR. to balance it with DEX.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah, but if you're going to get all technical about it, it doesn't make sense that a goliath would be just 5-10% stronger than a halfling, does it? I mean, if you're going to to go for real world accuracy, you're going to need halflings to have a strength of 3 and goliaths to have a strength of 25+. Which they will need just to move themselves about all day long. And I wouldn't expect them to be leaping across wide crevasses; the landing alone will risk breaking their ankles. So you'll have to have special jumping rules. Not to mention food; rations are going to take up a LOT more weight and space for a goliath.

Also, let's say we've decided to make strength accurately reflect real world biology. In that case, what about intelligence? Dexterity? Charisma? Wisdom? Constitution? Pretty hard to justify modifiers to any of those based on real world physics and biology.

Giving a goliath a +2 to strength over a halfling (which the halfling can make up with ASIs if they want anyone) is the barest nod to realism. Why bother? All it does is deincentivise certain class/species combinations at level 1, because gamers gonna game. Let the players decide what makes sense to them.

Again, people feel that +2 is a significant difference, thus it is a fine way to represent a significant difference.
And we don't need to assume that the scale is linear. Is tarrasque only 50% stronger than the strongest human?
That the representation is not perfect to me is not argument for getting rid of the little sense it has. At that point we might as well admit that the ability scores are just arbitrary numbers that do not represent anything, and once we do that there is no reason for them to exist at all.