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

[jmucchiello]

Earlier in the thread when you described it in "good" and "bad" terms I responded with this:
(edit, it didn't copy what he quoted. he said people don't play race/class combos where the race doesn't have a boost for the class' primary ability or words to that effect.)

I may have missed it. I only read these forums once every 2-4 days and these Level Up forums are cheetahs on hamster wheels.

But I also haven't been convinced that people eschew playing dwarf bards is a thing. Or, if it is a thing, that it is causing consternation among the masses. "Woe is me. We start a new campaign and I would be the dandiest Half-Orc Bard in all the Forgotten Realms if not for the lack of +2 Cha bonus on Half-Orcs. Drat this game." (A notch to far? Oh well.)

The "I can't do X because it's suboptimal" line will just be redrawn in the sand. Years from now people will be saying "How could the Level Up designers not have foreseen that everyone would do X? They should have done Y or Z." about something. If the motivation is removing suboptimal choices you need to make all choices exactly equal. And I do believe something like Godel's Completeness Theorem makes that an impossibility.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I may have missed it. I only read these forums once every 2-4 days and these Level Up forums are cheetahs on hamster wheels.

But I also haven't been convinced that people eschew playing dwarf bards is a thing. Or, if it is a thing, that it is causing consternation among the masses. "Woe is me. We start a new campaign and I would be the dandiest Half-Orc Bard in all the Forgotten Realms if not for the lack of +2 Cha bonus on Half-Orcs. Drat this game." (A notch to far? Oh well.)

The "I can't do X because it's suboptimal" line will just be redrawn in the sand. Years from now people will be saying "How could the Level Up designers not have foreseen that everyone would do X? They should have done Y or Z." about something. If the motivation is removing suboptimal choices you need to make all choices exactly equal. And I do believe something like Godel's Completeness Theorem makes that an impossibility.

Why the need to dramatically mischaracterize and exaggerate the opposing viewpoint?

1. Nobody is saying these suboptimal builds are not viable, just that they're not as good, and data seems to support the hypothesis that people avoid them as a result.
2. Nobody is saying there should be, or even could be, zero synergy between racial features and certain classes. Just that the less such synergy there is...that is, the more racial features work with any class...the less we will see people choosing races just to optimize their intended class.

So can we please stop with the hyperbole?

Now, do you make a valid point: whether or not more dwarf bards is a desirable outcome is entirely subjective. For people who think that those nontraditional combinations should be discouraged (while still permitted) then racial ASIs are a great way to achieve that. Frankly it surprises me that more people don't just use this simple argument. It's irrefutable.

But instead we keep seeing:

1. Arguments of how racial ASIs are necessary to the game for some nonsense reason or another.
2. Exaggeration/mischaracterization of the reasons given for getting rid of them.

Frankly it's just strange.

 

[tetrasodium]

Why the need to dramatically mischaracterize and exaggerate the opposing viewpoint?

1. Nobody is saying these suboptimal builds are not viable, just that they're not as good, and data seems to support the hypothesis that people avoid them as a result.
2. Nobody is saying there should be, or even could be, zero synergy between racial features and certain classes. Just that the less such synergy there is...that is, the more racial features work with any class...the less we will see people choosing races just to optimize their intended class.

So can we please stop with the hyperbole?

Now, do you make a valid point: whether or not more dwarf bards is a desirable outcome is entirely subjective. For people who think that those nontraditional combinations should be discouraged (while still permitted) then racial ASIs are a great way to achieve that. Frankly it surprises me that more people don't just use this simple argument. It's irrefutable.

But instead we keep seeing:

1. Arguments of how racial ASIs are necessary to the game for some nonsense reason or another.
2. Exaggeration/mischaracterization of the reasons given for getting rid of them.

Frankly it's just strange.

We don't specifically know what kind of mechanical boons the races have, it's entirely possible that a half orc or dwarf bard is extremely optimal for an unusual niche & frankly after watching all this drama I kinda hope so. Prior to 5e every edition has had niche builds that are really awesome if you have a certain race.

 

[aco175]

I just came to the conclusion that it does not matter where we place ASIs. A few pages ago there was discussion on giving scholars +2 Int and Pirates +2 Str. As I read that I pictured in my mind swapping out scholars with elf and pirate with orc. I thought that people would still just pick the best background instead of race for the class they want. So, now all wizards will be scholars instead of elves.

Is this whole discussion an attempt to avoid being/ thinking / feeling about race in Earth politics. I can see the PC generation still picking the best places to get your ASI.

 

[jmucchiello]

Why the need to dramatically mischaracterize and exaggerate the opposing viewpoint?

Maybe I just talk that way.

 

[jmucchiello]

I just came to the conclusion that it does not matter where we place ASIs. A few pages ago there was discussion on giving scholars +2 Int and Pirates +2 Str. As I read that I pictured in my mind swapping out scholars with elf and pirate with orc. I thought that people would still just pick the best background instead of race for the class they want. So, now all wizards will be scholars instead of elves.

Is this whole discussion an attempt to avoid being/ thinking / feeling about race in Earth politics. I can see the PC generation still picking the best places to get your ASI.

Thank you for saying what I've been saying better than I've been saying it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I just came to the conclusion that it does not matter where we place ASIs. A few pages ago there was discussion on giving scholars +2 Int and Pirates +2 Str. As I read that I pictured in my mind swapping out scholars with elf and pirate with orc. I thought that people would still just pick the best background instead of race for the class they want. So, now all wizards will be scholars instead of elves.

Yes that is exactly right. As long as you tie the ASIs to some kind of character choice, the result will be a strong bias toward certain combinations of choices. If that's your goal, it works. If you want players to not feel like they have to make sub-optimal choices in order to realize their character concept, it doesn't work.

Is this whole discussion an attempt to avoid being/ thinking / feeling about race in Earth politics. I can see the PC generation still picking the best places to get your ASI.

Most of us arguing against racial ASIs are doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with Earth politics.

There have been some comments to the effect that -2 Int to Orcs (from previous editions) is part of the problematic portrayal of orcs. But that doesn't exist in 5e, and I don't think it bears any relevance to the current discussion. Except for people who seem to believe that's what this is really all about, and thus they must resist it at all costs. Or whatever.

 

[Morrus]

So here's what our first playtest packet might look like (we've started work on it).

NOTE -- playtest packet means we're looking for the good and the bad. If it doesn't work for you, that's data. If it does, that's also data. Above all, we want data.

So...

• Heritage has a feat instead of ASI
• Culture contains the non 'biological' aspects of what was once 'race'
• Background has two +1 ASIs, one set, one floating

The model looks like this:

Heritage -- Elf - bio stuff, feat
...Culture -- wood elf
...Culture -- high elf
...Culture -- dark elf
...Culture -- (new elf)
Background - (inc ASIs)

+ some 'general' Cultures (like Cosmopolitan, Lone Wanderer, Nomad)

Any Heritage can take any Culture and any Background (if the [GM*] agrees).

We refer to these three building blocks as your 'Origin'. As in, everything before your first class level.

*Working on our term for that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Is this whole discussion an attempt to avoid being/ thinking / feeling about race in Earth politics. I can see the PC generation still picking the best places to get your ASI.

Yep, the same way people will (likely) put their best score in whatever the focus of their class is. More often than not, they want to be great at what they are supposed to be good at. Whether you choose your race or background to get the bonus, that likely is a reason why you are choosing it. Nothing wrong with it, by the way, if that is what you want.

This afternoon I started trying to look at this a different way...

If you keep ASI tied to race, what would happen?

Nothing. Well, more to the point the same stuff some people have been complaining about and stuff that makes other people happy...

If you tied ASI to background, or split it, what would happen?

Now you have even more disparity because players who want the big +3 bonus will be selecting background (as well as possibly race) for it. Now, you see more pigeon-holing of background into classes as well as possibly races into classes.

If we floated ASI completely, what would happen?

PCs would be on average the same as they are with having racial ASIs as currently, and you wouldn't have sub-optimal choices for race or backgrounds towards the focus of the class.

If we removed ASI completely, what would happen?

Players who want a +3 at level 1 will likely have to settle for a +2 (assuming point-buy or standard array, the human variant with the right feat could still get a 16...). Or, players would return to rolling more, trying to get the 16 or higher to have a +3 or better. Neither option is hardly the end of the world.

But the best part would be you would still no longer have sub-optimal choices for race or background towards the focus of the class.

So, my final decision to follow the path of greatest ease when it comes to house-ruling if you don't like the established system.
1. Keep them as is, in race. It is already established. It would be more work for players and DMs to add back in then just leave them alone.
2. Float them. It is pretty easy to say "just put a +2 where you want and a +1, or even just do three +1's." The choice where they go can be for race, background, or class development that way--however the player wants to justify them.
3. Remove them. For the people (like myself) who don't want them at all, it is easy enough to say "we don't use ASIs" and leave it at that.

I think we all know (I could be wrong...) that it is always easier to remove a rule we don't like or change it then add one. But hey, that is just my opinion.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So here's what our first playtest packet might look like (we've started work on it).

NOTE -- playtest packet means we're looking for the good and the bad. If it doesn't work for you, that's data. If it does, that's also data. Above all, we want data.

So...

• Heritage has a feat instead of ASI
• Culture contains the non 'biological' aspects of what was once 'race'
• Background has two +1 ASIs, one set, one floating

The model looks like this:

Heritage -- Elf - bio stuff, feat
...Culture -- wood elf
...Culture -- high elf
...Culture -- dark elf
...Culture -- (new elf)
Background - (inc ASIs)

+ some 'general' Cultures (like Cosmopolitan, Lone Wanderer, Nomad)

Any Heritage can take any Culture and any Background (if the [GM*] agrees).

We refer to these three building blocks as your 'Origin'. As in, everything before your first class level.

*Working on our term for that.

Heritage + Culture + Background = Origin?

Well, that certainly is "crunchier".