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

[Guest 6801328]

@Elfcrusher : I was not talking about being biased toward any particular background. What I was trying to say is that I believe backgrounds are really cool, so I voted for that option in the above poll. Also, having say 4 options to choose from or selectable with a d4 (some overlapping, but that's okay) in background with short descriptions next to why each option might be the case I think would add a lot of depth to character customization.

Lastly, if statwise many ancestry + culture combos just resulted in "roughly humanoid", that would be okay. Still, I think having some combos of ancestry + culture should give bonuses to abilities to keep some interesting mechanics in the stats of that sphere of a PC's makeup. That may cause some imballance/minmaxing, but I feel character creation variability and customization would be stronger for it. What do you think?

The only reason I would prefer ASIs in background rather than race is that ultimately background is less impactful than race. I would guess there is already a bias toward the Soldier background because it has the "best" skill proficiency, and anecdotally I have seen evidence bearing that out, but in my experience background doesn't show up at the table as much as race does. So if people are going to pick something for optimization reasons rather than roleplay reasons, I'd rather see it happen in background.

But ultimately I don't see...or, no longer see...the logic behind tying ASIs to any character choice. Sure, it kind of makes sense that a Scholar background would have +1 to Int, but if you like that flavor, and you have a floating ASI, go ahead and apply it to Int.

Somebody else might have a character concept that they grew up as a cloistered scholar, but weren't as bright as their peers, and got by through charm and/or trickery instead. That person should be able to put their ASI in Cha.

That doesn't mean that scholars aren't smarter on average than, say, pirates. Just that this scholar isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

[Kinematics]

That doesn't mean that scholars aren't smarter on average than, say, pirates. Just that this scholar isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

By the same token, even if this scholar is dumb as a brick compared to other scholars, I'd still expect him to be smarter than the equivalent dumb as a brick pirate simply because of the environment he's in. The pirate has zero opportunity to learn intelligence-based skills without going out of his way, while the scholar is surrounded by it all the time even if he tries to avoid it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

By the same token, even if this scholar is dumb as a brick compared to other scholars, I'd still expect him to be smarter than the equivalent dumb as a brick pirate simply because of the environment he's in. The pirate has zero opportunity to learn intelligence-based skills without going out of his way, while the scholar is surrounded by it all the time even if he tries to avoid it.

I would agree that on average scholars are probably more intelligent than pirates. I definitely think the stat block for NPC scholars should have a higher Int score than the stat block for NPC pirates.

AND...I hate to flog this former equine, but when talking about PCs in a campaign, I don't really care about what's average or typical. Just as I can appreciate the not-so-bright scholar who got by on charm, I can appreciate the pirate who has a classical education and quotes Shakespeare (or its fantasy equivalent) during sea battles. Where did he learn that? What secret is he hiding? What's he running away from?

EDIT: I didn't really appropriately answer this part:

I'd still expect him to be smarter than the equivalent dumb as a brick pirate

I think what you are saying is that if you made two nearly identical characters, with the only difference being that you gave one the scholar background and one the pirate background, the one with the scholar background should be more intelligent than the one with the pirate background.

I get that. It makes sense.

AND you can accomplish that, if that's what you want, by assigning a lower score to the pirate's Int in the first place, before any ASIs are assigned.

In other words, I don't see any significance to the thought experiment of making two nearly-identical characters, with only a background difference, and comparing the result. This doesn't tell me anything about the world, or about pirates and scholars in general. It just creates two unique, statistically irrelevant individuals in that world.

 

[Undrave]

@Elfcrusher : I was not talking about being biased toward any particular background. What I was trying to say is that I believe backgrounds are really cool, so I voted for that option in the above poll. Also, having say 4 options to choose from or selectable with a d4 (some overlapping, but that's okay) in background with short descriptions next to why each option might be the case I think would add a lot of depth to character customization.

Lastly, if statwise many ancestry + culture combos just resulted in "roughly humanoid", that would be okay. Still, I think having some combos of ancestry + culture should give bonuses to abilities to keep some interesting mechanics in the stats of that sphere of a PC's makeup. That may cause some imballance/minmaxing, but I feel character creation variability and customization would be stronger for it. What do you think?

Yeah I think it should be possible to, roughly (I think we could use this opportunity to tweak a few things) reproduce, say, a traditional mountain dwarf by picking dwarf and the culture (or upbringing or whatever) traditionally associated with them. You just would also be able to have dwarves who grew up elsewhere and those differences in upbringing would have an impact on their ability.

 

[Giauz]

I'm wondering if background and culture might be combined. Perhaps a background might say if this person of such background has such and such ancestry, then pick/roll for from these four Ability Score Bonus combos, otherwise use the "standard humanoid" four options. So, like a dragon-born or tiefling soldier might have one option of having a higher strength and con bonus combo compared to that available on the "sh" table. I just don't want to completely drop some intrinsic stat variation.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm wondering if background and culture might be combined. Perhaps a background might say if this person of such background has such and such ancestry, then pick/roll for from these four Ability Score Bonus combos, otherwise use the "standard humanoid" four options. So, like a dragon-born or tiefling soldier might have one option of having a higher strength and con bonus combo compared to that available on the "sh" table. I just don't want to completely drop some intrinsic stat variation.

I get it. One of my beefs is that there's so little stat variation in 5e. If ASIs were moved from race to floating we'd see more race/class combinations, but the actual stat arrays would probably look like they do now. As long as the final stats are a matter of player choice, players are going to tend to make the choices that give them the stats they want.

The only real solution is a random mechanic. Maybe (just throwing this out) after you make all those choices...race, class, background...you make a die roll which tells you one more thing about your character. Something about your natural gifts.

But it would have to be totally random. Even if you had different tables for different races, some (lots of?) people would choose specific races just because race X had a better chance of giving them the stats they wanted.

That's still problematic, of course. It wouldn't work for AL. And tons of people would fudge the rolls and pick the one they wanted anyway. So I'm not really proposing that as a solution just...thinking out loud.

 

[Maxperson]

At that point, why not just choose 3 points of ASI from the Ability scores noted by your race, culture, background, and class? A semi-floating ASI, as it were.

Because you can avoid race that way.

 

[jmucchiello]

I know there was a great debate about this months ago, that I didn't participate in or read. But. Why is okay for Elves to have better vision than other races but saying they have better Dexterity is bad? Why is it specifically differentiating by ASI that is bad? Or have I misunderstood and giving characters of elven ancestry Darkvision 60 feet is also considered bad?

 

[jmucchiello]

And a +2 to a stat is not 'Flavor'. Having a dragon breath is flavor, having poison resistance is flavor, being able to teleport is flavor...

All of those things sound like crunch, a mechanical game benefit, to me.

 

[jmucchiello]

The only reason I would prefer ASIs in background rather than race is that ultimately background is less impactful than race. I would guess there is already a bias toward the Soldier background because it has the "best" skill proficiency, and anecdotally I have seen evidence bearing that out, but in my experience background doesn't show up at the table as much as race does. So if people are going to pick something for optimization reasons rather than roleplay reasons, I'd rather see it happen in background.

Being able to make up your own background in the PHB, not as an option, but as RAW. Any character can just make up a background by RAW. So putting an ASI there is just a free ASI, as 5E is currently.