Level Up (A5E) Where to put ability bonuses during character creation

[tetrasodium]

My preference is actually someting quite different.

I'd prefer a smaller starting array, no startings ASIs and then each level a PC can add a +1 to a stat of their choice.

This represents the character evolving over time, and plus it feels good to get to boost a stat. Once every 4 levels and having to not choose a neat feat is too few for my tastes.

I too much prefer smaller starting numbers (or higher expected cap/target) with gradual growth through advancement thst allowed growth of +1/2/4/etc gear. The rarity of feats and powerful condensed feat tree feats make it very difficult to add back in as a simple house rule though. "Each level" is probably a bit too much growth through

 

[Morrus]

What problem exactly do you want to solve with removing ability scores from races anyway?

I'd say that you haven't been paying attention, but I know that you have. I'm surprised it took you 120 posts though! Busy weekend, I guess?

 

[Zardnaar]

BECMI didn't use racial modifiers.

Class based modifiers were shot down in the D&D Next playtest though so I guess who you want to aim the book at?

One thought I had today was make each races +2 floating or just add a floating +2 to each race.

The reason the races have the stats was because if the D&D next playtest iirc.

Some other ideas already got rejected back then as well. Forum polling my is one thing but that also lead to 4E.

There's reasons why 5E is so big.

 

[Haldrik]

For raw scores, I prefer arrays over random.

That said, this simple formula generates nice numbers: 8 + 2d4

Scores average 13, ranging 10 to 16.

 

[CapnZapp]

This is what people say when their own representation in the game is already to their satisfaction. They do project the world into their fantasy gaming, but they project their own experience of the world and therefore see no problems.

That's a disappointingly reductive take on my position.

I'll elaborate only if specifically invited to.

Regards

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can only speak for myself, but I don't project the real world into my fantasy gaming, and I have zero issues with some races being stronger or smarter or more being able to commune with stones or whatever, than others on average.

Stereotypes might not be good in real life, but they sure are in fantasy gaming imo.

Remember, our game will still feature heroes that have murdered thousands of creatures to reach level 20, so in my opinion it simply doesn't make any sense to draw parallels to only some aspects of our fantasy game of pretend elfs while ignoring others.

Let's just instead keep gaming and reality separate and keep enjoying silly stereotypes, rote storylines, exaggerated over-acting and the thrill of combat, without at any point suggesting we become more racist (or murderous!) in real life by doing so.

I have been advocating separating ancestry and culture, a la the book on DMsguild of the same name, mostly because I like the character building possibilities and because people seem to want a separation. Personally, I'm fine with leaving it as is.

 

[CleverNickName]

Having them in the background makes the most sense to me.

 

[ART!]

I went with what turns out to be the most popular option, a split between species, culture, and background, maybe +1 from each. Mostly I went with that because there wasn't an option for culture and background. I'd generally like to see the ASIs removed from cultures, but I think I'd be okay if each species got a +1.

 

[Haldrik]

I am so torn.

I like how an ability improvement coheres mechanics with flavor, when species, culture, and background each grant it.

I dislike how species and culture bake in racist tropes, that stereotype an entire race.



Background is optimal, because that is what an individual is doing. Backgrounds comprise culture too.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Keep them with races, thats the only thing that makes sense.

I'm curious if you think you might ever find the above argument persuasive, or really if you would even consider it be an actual "argument", if it were in support of something you didn't already agree with.

And yes, that means minmaxer/rollplayer will always pic certain race-class combinations, but so what? Those people are not interested in roleplaying anyway and they would not play any different without racial ability score adjustments.

That's...a pretty sweeping generalization. And it can just as easily (and falsely) be reversed: "Anybody who thinks racial ASIs are important clearly are too focused on ability scores and have no interest in actual roleplaying."

See? I can also make completely evidence-free assertions that do nothing but try to delegitimize an opposing viewpoint by attacking the holders of that viewpoint. Are you convinced yet?

What problem exactly do you want to solve with removing ability scores from races anyway?

Uhh....you literally just stated it (except that you assumed that the only sort of gamer who engages in the practice is somehow illegitimate and should be ignored.)