I keep asking people, and they keep not answering. Where. Is. The. Cutoff? Everybody keeps saying that there's absolutely no loss of power, functionality, competence, or ability to contribute if one plays an 'off' species/class combination and relies only on the strength of a raw 15 to carry them. Okay. What about the player who puts their 15 somewhere else? What about the player who only puts a 13 in their key stat? An 11? Their 8?
I've seen it happen. I've had players ask me why they feel so helpless and unable to contribute and show me their sheet with a sorcerer on it that has 18 Constitution, 15 Strength, and 11 Charisma. I've seen that sheet - when I asked what the heck was up with those numbers the player said he wanted to play a dragonborn sorcerer that was strong and tough like a real dragon, but he didn't understand why his DM wouldn't let him use his Constitution to cast spells, since the party's cleric got to use her best number to cast her spells with. He wanted to know why he needed to be a chatty-Cathy people person in order to be better at being a fire-breathing dragon man. That was a conversation, and one of those moments that made me revise my estimate of the collective Intelligence score of humanity...but he also kinda had a point, if in a very dumb way.
His character concept didn't care about Charisma. He didn't want to be a talky guy, he wanted to be a two-legged man-sized dragon, and two-legged man-sized dragons are strong and tough, not talky. So. Why didn't the DM flex there, hm? Was that the cutoff? At what point does the DM get to put her foot down and say "Look, this is the way the rules work. I can work with you on this, but you can't keep dragging the rest of my table down. At some point here you have to get with the program and play by enough of the same rules as everybody else for me to build a session for this group, okay?"
Sure there's a loss of power. One point is a pretty minor one. Giving people customizable stats isn't going to save them from stupidity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I'm hesitant to join this conversation because having too many pings annoys me, so I'll just try to make my point and get out.
A 15 is mathematically worse than a 16 when you really care about this. Now for some classes this won't bother them as much, but for spellcasters this is a big deal. Remember this is a d20 system, so each point is a 5% increase in the likelihood that you'll succeed on something. That means that our 16 intelligence artificer will succeed on their arcana, many crafting checks, and their spells 5% more frequently than your 15 intelligence artificer. That might not sound like a lot but it actually is a lot, because that effects every single die roll, and for spellcasters increasing their spell save DC is even more important because they often target numerous things on the same turn, and artificers in particular care about intelligence.
A battlesmith or an armorer will become 5% less likely to hit with their attacks, their spells, have their saving throw spells stick, and to succeed on intelligence based checks. That's a lot. At level 5 that character will be making 2 attacks in a round and the battlesmith 3 attacks in a round, compounding that 5% difference meaning that they are that much more likely to miss.
Now there's nothing wrong with playing an unoptimized character, but you do have to consider the fact that these numbers mean something on your sheet, and that because we're a d20 system its really easy to find out. Each increase represents 5% chance of difference, and across multiple sessions that means that there will be times when you miss by one and can't succeed because you didn't pick the best option. Ultimately this is a problem with a core mechanic of the game, in that ability scores shouldn't have been tied to race in the first place, but that doesn't mean that changing it up like this is good for the game.
As a final note, there are also classes where losing that point compounds across multiple abilities to make the character significantly less effective due to having poorer stats. A barbarian will be slightly less likely to hit, but they gain reckless attack and benefit from other stats so they don't lose too much compared to the bard that now has weaker spells and fewer uses of their core class ability that most of the subclasses (actually I think it's all of them) reference, use, or buff. So it is also relative to your class but the difference between a 15 and a 16 is more significant than I think y'all are giving credit for, especially for spell casters.
Also don't @ me, my favorite character was a strength based warlock, I like sillier builds too. Though he was also a dragonborn which did help the stats a lot.
I just want to add that it's not like a 15 max gives a build some kind of mystical roleplaying X-factor that more effective builds just can't match. You can make deep, compelling characters that are also good at doing what they're supposed to do. Now we just have no excuse not to.
the people who want to min-max, and pretend they dont.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
But no - that goliath wizard is not unplayable. It is behind the curve, but not so far so that the player could not contribute.
Oh, thank you Lady Yurei! How magnanimous of you. My 1st level Goliath Wizard and it’s lowly 15 Intelligence most humbly, and sincerely thank you for your tacit approval. 🙇♂️🙇♂️ We’re not worthy!
*Turns to Goliath Wizard, shouting* “Grovel with your master wretch!! Thank lady Yurei the Gregarious for her kindness in seeing fit to grant you your continued existence! Cur!!”
*Groveling obsequiously, grunting, barely coherent* “Unghh orrgh! Me fank nice lady. Goliuf Weezard luv da nice lady Ü-rēē. Nice lady no make mastah derete Weezard. Ugghhh.”
Does a wizard with a 14 starting Intelligence still count as "perfectly fine"?
Seeing as how, in 5e, a 14 is mathematically identical to a 15, and since even you yourself deemed fit to approve of a 15, I really don’t see why the hell not. 🤷♂️
But as I asked you the first time you told me to Rate That Wizard, where does the cutoff lie? [Sic] What about 13? 11? Sub-10...?
Who are we to judge for any tables but our own?!? It is not for you to decide how the players at my table prioritize their characters. Just as it is not up to me to decide how your table does it.
Where's that breakpoint you're looking for between "Good" and "abject stupidity"? At what point does a single player's desire to actively sabotage his character because he finds the story of a complete ****-up trying to be a hero more interesting than a heroic character doing their job start taking away from the rest of the table's enjoyment of being able to overcome challenges set before them without subpar sitcom hijinks?
You are presuming that anyone who dose even slightly less than the optimal thing must by default be:
“actively sabotage[ing] his (Really, gender assumption too?!?) character because he finds the story of a complete ****-up trying to be a hero more interesting than a heroic character doing their job” (Oh, but the “heroic character” gets to be gender inclusive, I see. *Tisk, tisk*)
You brought that up, not anyone over here. You are arguing against a point nobody but you made. That’s a blatant strawman argument.
By comparing every other character against a more highly optimized character is another example of Relative Privation. Using this method to judge the gaming intentions of the players lead to Supposition.
That is 100% pure supposition. You have that idea in your head, and you are projecting it on others. Making an active decision to accept a primary Ability score that is slightly lower than optimized because they prioritized a character concept/aesthetic over numerical superiority does not automatically imply any opinion that they find “a complete ****-up” compelling. It certainly does not imply that they are attempting to play a complete ****-up whatsoever. And it most definitely does not imply anything about that player’s opinion as to the comparative merits of a complete ****-up as opposed to a heroic character. That is all you inferring that crapola. Stop piling your baggage on other people’s happiness. If it makes someone happy to play a Goliath Wizard, an Orc Rogue, or a Hobgoblin Warlock, let them be happy. Stop telling us all that we’re inflicting our “subpar sitcom hijinks” on others because of a higher prioritization for style, and a willingness to take a very ******* small and very ******* temporary dip on substance. Ain’t no need to sweat nunna dat now dorlin’, Sposta gonna pull his weight. [REDACTED] 😉 I can make that pesky li’l dip disappear in five minutes when we hit 4th level, but I’ma stay stylin’ ‘til 20th baby.
Since the entire thing is based on a projection derived from an inference, that makes it another False Premise argument too.
Proper punctuation is to put things like periods and question marks inside of the quotation marks. Not only is it correct, it looks neater too.
So, is it okay for someone to make an Artificer without choosing either Elf or Dwarf as their race? Or at least without being made to feel like a dirty, dirty sinner for it? Because I really really want to make a Kobold Armorer, but only if it’s okay by you.
I just want to add that it's not like a 15 max gives a build some kind of mystical roleplaying X-factor that more effective builds just can't match. You can make deep, compelling characters that are also good at doing what they're supposed to do. Now we just have no excuse not to.
This isn’t about a 15 max. This is about a 1st level character picking a race/class that synergies at less than 100%, and therefore a 1st level character starts with a 15 in their primary Ability instead of a 16-17. Assuming Standard Array/Point Buy of course, and no Lineage System.
A battlesmith or an armorer will become 5% less likely to hit with their attacks, their spells, have their saving throw spells stick, and to succeed on intelligence based checks. That's a lot. At level 5 that character will be making 2 attacks in a round and the battlesmith 3 attacks in a round, compounding that 5% difference meaning that they are that much more likely to miss.
Also don't @ me, my favorite character was a strength based warlock, I like sillier builds too. Though he was also a dragonborn which did help the stats a lot.
Not “@ing” you, feel free to ignore this. Just pointing out that the 15 Int being discussed is for a 1st level character. At 4th level they would have had an opportunity to increase their Int to 16. There is nor reason to presume they would still have a 15 Int at 5th level.
I agree with /nearly/ everything you said there. The one caveat I have is that there's a /slight/ difference between 14 and 15. Mathematically, they are the same, however, the 15 opens you up to take a half-feat at 4, and get the same ASI progression as a 14 would, plus the benefits of whatever the feat is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Wow, that discussion spun out of control fast. Also it seems to assume that nobody ever rolls dice for their characters - because if you do then the apparently cliff-like breakpoint between 15 and 16 in a stat very often does not even exist. So it's only an issue for optimising characters using the points buy or standard spread methods, but most groups I have ever played with IRL stick with rolling dice and even about half of the online ones I have used this year found ways to roll dice online.
I think Mountain Dwarfs make great and thematic Artificers and I would be totally cool with someone using the Tashas rules to switch a stat bonus round and drop a couple of martial weapons to have yet more tool proficiencies. That character would start with effectively 3 more "racial" tool proficiencies than most other races which feels like it should cover all your real needs anyway.
Yeah my groups roll for stats and I find that makes me much more willing to play a race class combo that isn't necessarily optimized. For me the problem is mostly when you have options that are way better than other options it can lead to stale characters over time as you see things over and over again.
Also IamSpotsa I will say that both the character that starts with 15 and the one that starts with 16 will get that asi and both are likely to increase intelligence. I don't think it's a huge difference it does add up over time and does make your character weaker.
That said.... I now really want to make an Orc or Half-Orc Artificer who makes crazy Orc weapons, probably a Battlesmith. It sounds fun and brings Half-Orc outside its comfort zone (and under normal rules I would start with 15 int, which can partially be made up for with Enhanced Weapon).
Yeah my groups roll for stats and I find that makes me much more willing to play a race class combo that isn't necessarily optimized. For me the problem is mostly when you have options that are way better than other options it can lead to stale characters over time as you see things over and over again.
Also IamSpotsa I will say that both the character that starts with 15 and the one that starts with 16 will get that asi and both are likely to increase intelligence. I don't think it's a huge difference it does add up over time and does make your character weaker.
That said.... I now really want to make an Orc or Half-Orc Artificer who makes crazy Orc weapons, probably a Battlesmith. It sounds fun and brings Half-Orc outside its comfort zone (and under normal rules I would start with 15 int, which can partially be made up for with Enhanced Weapon).
(Working backwards.)
Cool!!
By 19th level, when the last ASI has been taken, everybody will have a 20 in main Ability. It all comes out in a wash sooner or later.
Which is precisely why I am so passionate about showing that that 1 or 2 “way better options” are not all there is, and that they should not dictate the whole game.
Well that actually brings me to my other main issue with 5e, feats replace ASIs. So yeah by level 12 you'll both have 20s (yay!). But the other person also has a feat and you probably are close to finishing that campaign anyway. So you're still behind but in a different way. That's part of what I like about the new lineage system, but I do dislike that if I go point buy as a mountain dwarf I can have 2 18s at 4th level which is really far above the curve and all I have to do is turn what would have been a 10 into a second 8. Then add in the fact that now I can also add 6 extra tools onto my Artificer and it makes other options seem really silly in comparison.
So yeah the new lineage system helps make race less important but is also kind of raises some other races above the curve by more than I personally like.
So yeah the new lineage system helps make race less important but is also kind of raises some other races above the curve by more than I personally like.
Which brings me to my next point, I think one’s choice of race should be important.
So yeah the new lineage system helps make race less important but is also kind of raises some other races above the curve by more than I personally like.
Which brings me to my next point, I think one’s choice of race should be important.
I cannot upvote this post enough. it should mean more than just "advantage on magic resists" or "free medium armor, plus hammers and axes". Frankly, I find a dwarf wizard who has to overcome his 15 int to start is a much more interesting and compelling character than a dwarf wizard starting with medium armor, 16 int and 16 con.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
If a DM is willing to roll for stats and accept a 40+-point differential between the guy who rolls the 90+-point superhero array and the guy who rolls the sub-50-point village idiot array, then nothing matters anymore and that table has accepted Chaos as their master. They are free to ignore every discussion pertaining to numbers of any sort on this forum. For everyone else, there's the commonly accepted standards for forum discussions, which include the idea that standard array is the standard because a common point of reference is sorta required for any meaningful discussion to take place.
Species should matter, yes. It should provide a suite of biological capacities and capabilities that differentiate one's species from another. It should come with cultural associations and expectations, a place in the world the character is expected to conform to. A dwarf is expected to be dwarven, with all that entails, and the character can either thrive in that role and cherish their dwarven dwarfness, or they can chafe against the role and fight against it. A lot of DMs don't bother with interspecies relations these days, and I think that's a shame. There should be room in a D&D game for variations in interspecies relations even in a world where Wizards is no longer allowed to get away with passive racism the way it has been for the last fifty years.
What I don't believe is that three or four fixed points of ability boost have anything interesting to say about a species. I've had this argument a dozen times though, and it's wildly off-topic for the artificer subforum, so I'm going to try and avoid that rant. All I will say is that if you want species to matter in your game, enforcing fixed ability bonuses is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to ask your DM to highlight the differences between societies built by different species in play, and then help them do that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Perhaps not.
What about two points? Three points? Five?
I keep asking people, and they keep not answering. Where. Is. The. Cutoff? Everybody keeps saying that there's absolutely no loss of power, functionality, competence, or ability to contribute if one plays an 'off' species/class combination and relies only on the strength of a raw 15 to carry them. Okay. What about the player who puts their 15 somewhere else? What about the player who only puts a 13 in their key stat? An 11? Their 8?
I've seen it happen. I've had players ask me why they feel so helpless and unable to contribute and show me their sheet with a sorcerer on it that has 18 Constitution, 15 Strength, and 11 Charisma. I've seen that sheet - when I asked what the heck was up with those numbers the player said he wanted to play a dragonborn sorcerer that was strong and tough like a real dragon, but he didn't understand why his DM wouldn't let him use his Constitution to cast spells, since the party's cleric got to use her best number to cast her spells with. He wanted to know why he needed to be a chatty-Cathy people person in order to be better at being a fire-breathing dragon man. That was a conversation, and one of those moments that made me revise my estimate of the collective Intelligence score of humanity...but he also kinda had a point, if in a very dumb way.
His character concept didn't care about Charisma. He didn't want to be a talky guy, he wanted to be a two-legged man-sized dragon, and two-legged man-sized dragons are strong and tough, not talky. So. Why didn't the DM flex there, hm? Was that the cutoff? At what point does the DM get to put her foot down and say "Look, this is the way the rules work. I can work with you on this, but you can't keep dragging the rest of my table down. At some point here you have to get with the program and play by enough of the same rules as everybody else for me to build a session for this group, okay?"
Please do not contact or message me.
Sure there's a loss of power. One point is a pretty minor one. Giving people customizable stats isn't going to save them from stupidity.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I'm hesitant to join this conversation because having too many pings annoys me, so I'll just try to make my point and get out.
A 15 is mathematically worse than a 16 when you really care about this. Now for some classes this won't bother them as much, but for spellcasters this is a big deal. Remember this is a d20 system, so each point is a 5% increase in the likelihood that you'll succeed on something. That means that our 16 intelligence artificer will succeed on their arcana, many crafting checks, and their spells 5% more frequently than your 15 intelligence artificer. That might not sound like a lot but it actually is a lot, because that effects every single die roll, and for spellcasters increasing their spell save DC is even more important because they often target numerous things on the same turn, and artificers in particular care about intelligence.
A battlesmith or an armorer will become 5% less likely to hit with their attacks, their spells, have their saving throw spells stick, and to succeed on intelligence based checks. That's a lot. At level 5 that character will be making 2 attacks in a round and the battlesmith 3 attacks in a round, compounding that 5% difference meaning that they are that much more likely to miss.
Now there's nothing wrong with playing an unoptimized character, but you do have to consider the fact that these numbers mean something on your sheet, and that because we're a d20 system its really easy to find out. Each increase represents 5% chance of difference, and across multiple sessions that means that there will be times when you miss by one and can't succeed because you didn't pick the best option. Ultimately this is a problem with a core mechanic of the game, in that ability scores shouldn't have been tied to race in the first place, but that doesn't mean that changing it up like this is good for the game.
As a final note, there are also classes where losing that point compounds across multiple abilities to make the character significantly less effective due to having poorer stats. A barbarian will be slightly less likely to hit, but they gain reckless attack and benefit from other stats so they don't lose too much compared to the bard that now has weaker spells and fewer uses of their core class ability that most of the subclasses (actually I think it's all of them) reference, use, or buff. So it is also relative to your class but the difference between a 15 and a 16 is more significant than I think y'all are giving credit for, especially for spell casters.
Also don't @ me, my favorite character was a strength based warlock, I like sillier builds too. Though he was also a dragonborn which did help the stats a lot.
I just want to add that it's not like a 15 max gives a build some kind of mystical roleplaying X-factor that more effective builds just can't match. You can make deep, compelling characters that are also good at doing what they're supposed to do. Now we just have no excuse not to.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
the people who want to min-max, and pretend they dont.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Let’s take the relevant parts one at a time.
Oh, thank you Lady Yurei! How magnanimous of you. My 1st level Goliath Wizard and it’s lowly 15 Intelligence most humbly, and sincerely thank you for your tacit approval. 🙇♂️🙇♂️ We’re not worthy!
*Turns to Goliath Wizard, shouting* “Grovel with your master wretch!! Thank lady Yurei the Gregarious for her kindness in seeing fit to grant you your continued existence! Cur!!”
*Groveling obsequiously, grunting, barely coherent* “Unghh orrgh! Me fank nice lady. Goliuf Weezard luv da nice lady Ü-rēē. Nice lady no make mastah derete Weezard. Ugghhh.”
Seeing as how, in 5e, a 14 is mathematically identical to a 15, and since even you yourself deemed fit to approve of a 15, I really don’t see why the hell not. 🤷♂️
Who are we to judge for any tables but our own?!? It is not for you to decide how the players at my table prioritize their characters. Just as it is not up to me to decide how your table does it.
Objections: Strawman Argument, Relative Privation, Supposition, False Premise, (honorable mention: incorrect punctuation)
You are presuming that anyone who dose even slightly less than the optimal thing must by default be:
“actively sabotage[ing] his (Really, gender assumption too?!?) character because he finds the story of a complete ****-up trying to be a hero more interesting than a heroic character doing their job” (Oh, but the “heroic character” gets to be gender inclusive, I see. *Tisk, tisk*)
You brought that up, not anyone over here. You are arguing against a point nobody but you made. That’s a blatant strawman argument.
By comparing every other character against a more highly optimized character is another example of Relative Privation. Using this method to judge the gaming intentions of the players lead to Supposition.
That is 100% pure supposition. You have that idea in your head, and you are projecting it on others. Making an active decision to accept a primary Ability score that is slightly lower than optimized because they prioritized a character concept/aesthetic over numerical superiority does not automatically imply any opinion that they find “a complete ****-up” compelling. It certainly does not imply that they are attempting to play a complete ****-up whatsoever. And it most definitely does not imply anything about that player’s opinion as to the comparative merits of a complete ****-up as opposed to a heroic character. That is all you inferring that crapola. Stop piling your baggage on other people’s happiness. If it makes someone happy to play a Goliath Wizard, an Orc Rogue, or a Hobgoblin Warlock, let them be happy. Stop telling us all that we’re inflicting our “subpar sitcom hijinks” on others because of a higher prioritization for style, and a willingness to take a very ******* small and very ******* temporary dip on substance. Ain’t no need to sweat nunna dat now dorlin’, Sposta gonna pull his weight. [REDACTED] 😉 I can make that pesky li’l dip disappear in five minutes when we hit 4th level, but I’ma stay stylin’ ‘til 20th baby.
Since the entire thing is based on a projection derived from an inference, that makes it another False Premise argument too.
Proper punctuation is to put things like periods and question marks inside of the quotation marks. Not only is it correct, it looks neater too.
So, is it okay for someone to make an Artificer without choosing either Elf or Dwarf as their race? Or at least without being made to feel like a dirty, dirty sinner for it? Because I really really want to make a Kobold Armorer, but only if it’s okay by you.
Edit: (Figured I would save everyone the time.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This isn’t about a 15 max. This is about a 1st level character picking a race/class that synergies at less than 100%, and therefore a 1st level character starts with a 15 in their primary Ability instead of a 16-17. Assuming Standard Array/Point Buy of course, and no Lineage System.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Not “@ing” you, feel free to ignore this. Just pointing out that the 15 Int being discussed is for a 1st level character. At 4th level they would have had an opportunity to increase their Int to 16. There is nor reason to presume they would still have a 15 Int at 5th level.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I agree with /nearly/ everything you said there. The one caveat I have is that there's a /slight/ difference between 14 and 15. Mathematically, they are the same, however, the 15 opens you up to take a half-feat at 4, and get the same ASI progression as a 14 would, plus the benefits of whatever the feat is.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Me: tells people about a cool synergy 🙂
Others: let's talk about optimisation a serious discussion 😅
Its cool folks I was think of playing Bob the Builder and that would be the end of it 🤣
Wizards of the Coast Feedback/Support
https://support.wizards.com/hc/en-us/requests/new
It is in fact a very cool synergy. I had noticed it myself as well.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Wow, that discussion spun out of control fast. Also it seems to assume that nobody ever rolls dice for their characters - because if you do then the apparently cliff-like breakpoint between 15 and 16 in a stat very often does not even exist. So it's only an issue for optimising characters using the points buy or standard spread methods, but most groups I have ever played with IRL stick with rolling dice and even about half of the online ones I have used this year found ways to roll dice online.
I think Mountain Dwarfs make great and thematic Artificers and I would be totally cool with someone using the Tashas rules to switch a stat bonus round and drop a couple of martial weapons to have yet more tool proficiencies. That character would start with effectively 3 more "racial" tool proficiencies than most other races which feels like it should cover all your real needs anyway.
Two points:
Yeah my groups roll for stats and I find that makes me much more willing to play a race class combo that isn't necessarily optimized. For me the problem is mostly when you have options that are way better than other options it can lead to stale characters over time as you see things over and over again.
Also IamSpotsa I will say that both the character that starts with 15 and the one that starts with 16 will get that asi and both are likely to increase intelligence. I don't think it's a huge difference it does add up over time and does make your character weaker.
That said.... I now really want to make an Orc or Half-Orc Artificer who makes crazy Orc weapons, probably a Battlesmith. It sounds fun and brings Half-Orc outside its comfort zone (and under normal rules I would start with 15 int, which can partially be made up for with Enhanced Weapon).
(Working backwards.)
Cool!!
By 19th level, when the last ASI has been taken, everybody will have a 20 in main Ability. It all comes out in a wash sooner or later.
Which is precisely why I am so passionate about showing that that 1 or 2 “way better options” are not all there is, and that they should not dictate the whole game.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well that actually brings me to my other main issue with 5e, feats replace ASIs. So yeah by level 12 you'll both have 20s (yay!). But the other person also has a feat and you probably are close to finishing that campaign anyway. So you're still behind but in a different way. That's part of what I like about the new lineage system, but I do dislike that if I go point buy as a mountain dwarf I can have 2 18s at 4th level which is really far above the curve and all I have to do is turn what would have been a 10 into a second 8. Then add in the fact that now I can also add 6 extra tools onto my Artificer and it makes other options seem really silly in comparison.
So yeah the new lineage system helps make race less important but is also kind of raises some other races above the curve by more than I personally like.
Which brings me to my next point, I think one’s choice of race should be important.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I cannot upvote this post enough. it should mean more than just "advantage on magic resists" or "free medium armor, plus hammers and axes". Frankly, I find a dwarf wizard who has to overcome his 15 int to start is a much more interesting and compelling character than a dwarf wizard starting with medium armor, 16 int and 16 con.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
If a DM is willing to roll for stats and accept a 40+-point differential between the guy who rolls the 90+-point superhero array and the guy who rolls the sub-50-point village idiot array, then nothing matters anymore and that table has accepted Chaos as their master. They are free to ignore every discussion pertaining to numbers of any sort on this forum. For everyone else, there's the commonly accepted standards for forum discussions, which include the idea that standard array is the standard because a common point of reference is sorta required for any meaningful discussion to take place.
Species should matter, yes. It should provide a suite of biological capacities and capabilities that differentiate one's species from another. It should come with cultural associations and expectations, a place in the world the character is expected to conform to. A dwarf is expected to be dwarven, with all that entails, and the character can either thrive in that role and cherish their dwarven dwarfness, or they can chafe against the role and fight against it. A lot of DMs don't bother with interspecies relations these days, and I think that's a shame. There should be room in a D&D game for variations in interspecies relations even in a world where Wizards is no longer allowed to get away with passive racism the way it has been for the last fifty years.
What I don't believe is that three or four fixed points of ability boost have anything interesting to say about a species. I've had this argument a dozen times though, and it's wildly off-topic for the artificer subforum, so I'm going to try and avoid that rant. All I will say is that if you want species to matter in your game, enforcing fixed ability bonuses is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to ask your DM to highlight the differences between societies built by different species in play, and then help them do that.
Please do not contact or message me.