Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DammitVictor" data-source="post: 8043195" data-attributes="member: 6750908">It wasn't really an issue in TSR D&D where characters didn't improve their ability scores as they leveled, or in 3e and 4e where characters could improve their ability scores indefinitely-- limited only by character level-- but combining regular ability score increases with ability score caps that a lucky character could hit at 1st level is one of the most incomprehensibly bad design decisions in 5e.This. So much this, all of this forever. If you can legally, legitimately play a D&D character whose prime requisite does not get a bonus from the PC's race-- which is at least theoretically true-- then you do not need the 1st level racial ability score increases at all. They're not necessary.Prior to AD&D, when races were classes, they didn't have racial ASIs. They were added in AD&D to differentiate members of one race from another, since they might be members of the same class. (They weren't necessary then.) They were supposed to be balanced against each other, and humans didn't get them in AD&D or 3.X. Humans started getting the "floating" ASIs in 4e and PF because nonhuman ASIs were adjusted to be "net positive" instead of balancing out.They're unnecessary. If we're going to remove them because they are causing a problem with gameplay or because they are socially uncomfortable... we do not need to replace them with anything, and if we're going with the latter argument, that's a very strong argument against replacing them with anything.Because if we're talking about replacing "elves are quicker and smarter than dwarves" because it's essentialist and problematic, but we're talking about replacing it with "the nobility are wiser and more beautiful than academics"... seriously, how is changing race/species bioessentialism into socioeconomic essentialism not objectively worse?</blockquote>

Verification