Just pointing out that not getting an extra bonus is not they same as being “punished,” it’s just not getting an extra bonus.
Being denied a bonus is a punishment.
Getting a bonus in Stat X instead of Stat Y is not “being denied a bonus,” it’s just getting a different bonus than the one you wanted. It only feels like you’re “being denied” something if you feel you’re entitled to whatever you want in the first place. If instead one only feels entitled to the stats they rolled/bought/assigned, then the bonuses are exactly that, bonuses. So your orc Wizard is stronger then they otherwise would have been instead of smarter than they otherwise would have been. So what? So play a strong Wizard and actually take a quarterstaff instead of the dagger and feel secure that, with level based ASIs you will still inevitably get that Int 20 eventually and still be just as smart as that gnome. That gnome ain’t got nothin on you but a head start is all. 💁♂️ You’ll get there, and you’ll be strong too. “Bonus.”
Getting a bonus in Stat X instead of Stat Y is not “being denied a bonus,” it’s just getting a different bonus than the one you wanted. It only feels like you’re “being denied” something if you feel you’re entitled to whatever you want in the first place.
And by the fact that they've created races that get appropriate bonuses, they have made it justified to feel entitled to that bonus.
if someone gets nothing above a 13, the solution is simple. Let them roll again. I'm trying to get a campaign going on mondays and I am having players do 4d6k3r1 in order, no tasha's flaoting ASIs, and you have to pick your race and background before you roll. Must meet the prerequisite for the class you want to play (13 min in the main stat). One player rolled nothing above a 13 and like an 8 for their con. I had them reroll, because that was clearly an unviable character.
I generally prefer rolling stats because it can give you better numbers than point buy or standard array. But also I like point buy because then I know I won't get absolutely dog-shit stats and i can customize them. Standard array is shit and I don't understand people who use it.
the reason I am implementing the rolling system is because I want people to not come to the table with an idea in mind for the character they want. I don't want them to try and make some random, wack anime character they have in their head. I want them to have an actual idea. The randomness is fun too :) the player who only plays martials and wizards now gets a very high wisdom and has a terrible strength and middling dex? Guess cleric or druid it is! Get out of that comfort zone! :)
Getting a bonus in Stat X instead of Stat Y is not “being denied a bonus,” it’s just getting a different bonus than the one you wanted. It only feels like you’re “being denied” something if you feel you’re entitled to whatever you want in the first place.
And by the fact that they've created races that get appropriate bonuses, they have made it justified to feel entitled to that bonus.
You say “appropriate bonuses” as if there are any inappropriate ones.
Getting a bonus in Stat X instead of Stat Y is not “being denied a bonus,” it’s just getting a different bonus than the one you wanted. It only feels like you’re “being denied” something if you feel you’re entitled to whatever you want in the first place.
And by the fact that they've created races that get appropriate bonuses, they have made it justified to feel entitled to that bonus.
If we want to talk psychology and how things actually effect behavior. Probably the reason it is interpreted as a punishment is that it's directly linked to a choice and so it's hard for people to separate the consequence from that choice. If for example you rolled races randomly then I don't think people would interpret it as a punishment but because they are being made to choose a race and then having their choice be sub optimal.
It is also taking something away. There is the simple pure dopamine rush of numbers go up but there is also diminishing returns from non key stats and the feat mechanic. Practically speaking a slightly stronger wizard is never going to be considered strong and probably won't actually be strong. Giving them a 10 instead of an 8 in most cases. We are talking a 5 % chance increase in a stat they won't really use, so it's practically non existent compared to their main stat which will often appear several times per action. At the same time using less level based stat increases can mean getting a feat which means players who have the lower key stats are often denied a very powerful and popular mechanic of the game if their race class combo does not give them the appropriate +2.
Obviously every party is different but on average you will find this effect quite strong and mainly see people doing certain race class combos with your occasional exception primarily when there is a boost to secondary stat usually dexterity or constitution. Races with strength and intelligence will be me the most type cast as these are often dump stats.
My advice is do one of the following:
Use set racial stats but races are randomly selected with a dice roll
Use tasha's rules
Don't give any stat bonus and give a feat instead ( my personal preference. Mechanics > numbers)
Or because I just want to play an Orc Wizard and orcs are sposta be strong so I want the +2 in Strength?
Or what if my last character started with an 18 in their casting stat and by 4th level I had no advancement to look forward to in that regard other then PB bumps and this time I’m kegeling to enjoy some delayed gratification? 😉
Or what if it’s a table where others also have unoptimized stats and I don’t want to blow the bell curve for the DM?
Or because I just want to play an Orc Wizard and orcs are sposta be strong so I want the +2 in Strength?
Or what if my last character started with an 18 in their casting stat and by 4th level I had no advancement to look forward to in that regard other then PB bumps and this time I’m kegeling to enjoy some delayed gratification? 😉
Or what if it’s a table where others also have unoptimized stats and I don’t want to blow the bell curve for the DM?
Or what if….
Even if your character starts with an 18 or even 20 every increase is also potentially a feat and people love feats. Even if you were the kind of person to not necessarily go for power, a feat could be something flavorful like languages and every 1 or two ability points is potentially a trade off for one of those. Then there is also multi classing which reduces the number of those increases you get. So I don't think very many people are likely to take that option because it limits your choices. Playing an orc wizard without a the racial +2 to int becomes like a tax from the range of things you can do with that wizard.
Or because I just want to play an Orc Wizard and orcs are sposta be strong so I want the +2 in Strength?
Or what if my last character started with an 18 in their casting stat and by 4th level I had no advancement to look forward to in that regard other then PB bumps and this time I’m kegeling to enjoy some delayed gratification? 😉
Or what if it’s a table where others also have unoptimized stats and I don’t want to blow the bell curve for the DM?
Or what if….
Even if your character starts with an 18 or even 20 every increase is also potentially a feat and people love feats. Even if you were the kind of person to not necessarily go for power, a feat could be something flavorful like languages and every 1 or two ability points is potentially a trade off for one of those. Then there is also multi classing which reduces the number of those increases you get. So I don't think very many people are likely to take that option because it limits your choices. Playing an orc wizard without a the racial +2 to int becomes like a tax from the range of things you can do with that wizard.
So your argument is that it’s okay for me to take feats as flavorful embellishments for my Wiz, but not the +2 Str for being an Orc. 🤔🤨 If you choose to see an unoptimized racial ASI as a tax then nothing I say will ever change your mind. But I choose to not see it that way, I choose to see it for what I fell it is, a “bonus” to that character’s Strength. I’ve provided several reasons why I might actually want that bonus, and I could go on. My point is, if one simply views the situation from a slightly different perspective then it isn’t a “punishment,” or a “tax” or any other such. It simply is what it is. It’s different than how you would do it, but that’s why I play at my table and you play at yours, because they each suit our individual views on what D&D is for us. It’s just different, but that doesn’t mean my perspective is any less valid than yours. Ne?
It’s just different, but that doesn’t mean my perspective is any less valid than yours. Ne?
So you agree it's valid to call it a penalty? Or are you saying only your perspective is valid?
If you’re dead set on calling it a penalty then, as I already said, nothing I can ever say will change your mind. But I don’t see it as a penalty and I urge others not to either. If you have a problem with that then that’s a you problem, not a me problem.
If you’re dead set on calling it a penalty then, as I already said, nothing I can ever say will change your mind. But I don’t see it as a penalty and I urge others not to either. If you have a problem with that then that’s a you problem, not a me problem.
The issue is that it's not the DM who decides whether something feels like a penalty, it's the players.
Or because I just want to play an Orc Wizard and orcs are sposta be strong so I want the +2 in Strength?
Or what if my last character started with an 18 in their casting stat and by 4th level I had no advancement to look forward to in that regard other then PB bumps and this time I’m kegeling to enjoy some delayed gratification? 😉
Or what if it’s a table where others also have unoptimized stats and I don’t want to blow the bell curve for the DM?
Or what if….
Even if your character starts with an 18 or even 20 every increase is also potentially a feat and people love feats. Even if you were the kind of person to not necessarily go for power, a feat could be something flavorful like languages and every 1 or two ability points is potentially a trade off for one of those. Then there is also multi classing which reduces the number of those increases you get. So I don't think very many people are likely to take that option because it limits your choices. Playing an orc wizard without a the racial +2 to int becomes like a tax from the range of things you can do with that wizard.
So your argument is that it’s okay for me to take feats as flavorful embellishments for my Wiz, but not the +2 Str for being an Orc. 🤔🤨 If you choose to see an unoptimized racial ASI as a tax then nothing I say will ever change your mind. But I choose to not see it that way, I choose to see it for what I fell it is, a “bonus” to that character’s Strength. I’ve provided several reasons why I might actually want that bonus, and I could go on. My point is, if one simply views the situation from a slightly different perspective then it isn’t a “punishment,” or a “tax” or any other such. It simply is what it is. It’s different than how you would do it, but that’s why I play at my table and you play at yours, because they each suit our individual views on what D&D is for us. It’s just different, but that doesn’t mean my perspective is any less valid than yours. Ne?
That is not what I said, I said the race takes the place of a feat or multi class so of course you can take a race instead its just that when we are talking about race class combos/ game balance, attaching an ability score bonus to race puts it in competition with both of those which is why the sub optimum races almost always lose out. This is especially true when you take into account the popularity of races like custom lineage which give a feat at level 1 instead of race features.
My issue I don't think it really hurts your choice to play a strong orc or similar trope to have a choice of stats or even no bonus stats from race at all. Where as empirically and for obvious reasons it does effect the variety of races and classes people choose in most games.
If you’re dead set on calling it a penalty then, as I already said, nothing I can ever say will change your mind. But I don’t see it as a penalty and I urge others not to either. If you have a problem with that then that’s a you problem, not a me problem.
The issue is that it's not the DM who decides whether something feels like a penalty, it's the players.
For one thing, the DM is a player, just with a muu—uuch bigger “character” sheet.
For another thing, I never argued that the DM decides any such thing. All I did was urge VampByDay not to personally view it as a penalty. You interposed yourself and started debating against my perspective, and I have obliged you because I like you. (We disagree on this point, but if I only interacted with people who already agree with me then life would be rather boring.)
Finally, feel free to disagree with any of my opinions, it’s still a free country. And voice your contrasting opinions, that’s the nature of healthy discourse. I request you extended me the same courtesy. Fair?
Or because I just want to play an Orc Wizard and orcs are sposta be strong so I want the +2 in Strength?
Or what if my last character started with an 18 in their casting stat and by 4th level I had no advancement to look forward to in that regard other then PB bumps and this time I’m kegeling to enjoy some delayed gratification? 😉
Or what if it’s a table where others also have unoptimized stats and I don’t want to blow the bell curve for the DM?
Or what if….
Even if your character starts with an 18 or even 20 every increase is also potentially a feat and people love feats. Even if you were the kind of person to not necessarily go for power, a feat could be something flavorful like languages and every 1 or two ability points is potentially a trade off for one of those. Then there is also multi classing which reduces the number of those increases you get. So I don't think very many people are likely to take that option because it limits your choices. Playing an orc wizard without a the racial +2 to int becomes like a tax from the range of things you can do with that wizard.
So your argument is that it’s okay for me to take feats as flavorful embellishments for my Wiz, but not the +2 Str for being an Orc. 🤔🤨 If you choose to see an unoptimized racial ASI as a tax then nothing I say will ever change your mind. But I choose to not see it that way, I choose to see it for what I fell it is, a “bonus” to that character’s Strength. I’ve provided several reasons why I might actually want that bonus, and I could go on. My point is, if one simply views the situation from a slightly different perspective then it isn’t a “punishment,” or a “tax” or any other such. It simply is what it is. It’s different than how you would do it, but that’s why I play at my table and you play at yours, because they each suit our individual views on what D&D is for us. It’s just different, but that doesn’t mean my perspective is any less valid than yours. Ne?
That is not what I said, I said the race takes the place of a feat or multi class so of course you can take a race instead its just that when we are talking about race class combos/ game balance, attaching an ability score bonus to race puts it in competition with both of those which is why the sub optimum races almost always lose out. This is especially true when you take into account the popularity of races like custom lineage which give a feat at level 1 instead of race features.
My issue I don't think it really hurts your choice to play a strong orc or similar trope to have a choice of stats or even no bonus stats from race at all. Where as empirically and for obvious reasons it does effect the variety of races and classes people choose in most games.
Which is why I urge people to view things from another perspective, to change the narrative. I explained it further in this other thread earlier today:
if someone gets nothing above a 13, the solution is simple. Let them roll again. I'm trying to get a campaign going on mondays and I am having players do 4d6k3r1 in order, no tasha's flaoting ASIs, and you have to pick your race and background before you roll. Must meet the prerequisite for the class you want to play (13 min in the main stat). One player rolled nothing above a 13 and like an 8 for their con. I had them reroll, because that was clearly an unviable character.
I generally prefer rolling stats because it can give you better numbers than point buy or standard array. But also I like point buy because then I know I won't get absolutely dog-shit stats and i can customize them. Standard array is shit and I don't understand people who use it.
the reason I am implementing the rolling system is because I want people to not come to the table with an idea in mind for the character they want. I don't want them to try and make some random, wack anime character they have in their head. I want them to have an actual idea. The randomness is fun too :) the player who only plays martials and wizards now gets a very high wisdom and has a terrible strength and middling dex? Guess cleric or druid it is! Get out of that comfort zone! :)
Or here is a thought:
Scrap the entire rolled stats. The players choose what they want, and use the reservoir from the 27 point buy or std array and choose the stat block they want from those mechanics. No need for the power leaps provided by tasha's.
BUT, if you choose to allow 4d6, well, if a player rolls nothing better than a 13, so be it. The dice giveth with 4d6 far more than they taketh away. That is a statistical fact. So some player rolls badly. It is supposed to happen occasionally.
sounds lame as all balls. I specifically said I don't like standard array, so ew. I don't care for point buy as a DM, really only as a player and purely as a fallback. Players like rolling dice, that's why they're in the game and why dice were made in the first place.
I didn't say there was a need for the tasha's stuff, I said I didn't allow it (except for changing out any profs you have like the hobgoblin's martial training.)
I was mostly responding to OP and their specific example with the no over 13's thing. But also, no. I would let someone reroll, unless we were playing OD&D or something. Gygax himself and the rest of TSR even put out some products (or one of the dragon magazines idk?) about alternate rolling methods and told people "if some player rolls like absolute trash, just have them reroll, there are things such as non-viable, DoA characters." and so, if someone gets a bunch of stats that clearly aren't going to be fun then I'd let them reroll. If we were specifically looking to play a game with middling stat characters then yeah whatever, but most of the time I'm not.
Which is why I urge people to view things from another perspective, to change the narrative. I explained it further in this other thread earlier today:
The basic issue is that, while the game is totally playable without a starting 16 in your primary attribute, being straight up worse than other PCs at the same sort of thing they do feels like a penalty, regardless of whether it's mechanically a penalty, and the odds that none of your players feel that way is low.
Which is why I urge people to view things from another perspective, to change the narrative. I explained it further in this other thread earlier today:
The basic issue is that, while the game is totally playable without a starting 16 in your primary attribute, being straight up worse than other PCs at the same sort of thing they do feels like a penalty, regardless of whether it's mechanically a penalty, and the odds that none of your players feel that way is low.
At my table, I’m considered the most likely “power gamer” of the group. When the others are less inclined to munchkin than the guy saying munchkining is unnecessary pointless, then I’m pretty confident in saying “none of my players feels that way.”
This isn't a game problem, its a gaming culture problem.
Envy is human nature, and games are generally games, not self-improvement tools -- and if I'm going to try to use one as a self-improvement tool, "It's okay to be inferior" is neither a high priority of mine nor something they're well suited to teaching.
Getting a bonus in Stat X instead of Stat Y is not “being denied a bonus,” it’s just getting a different bonus than the one you wanted. It only feels like you’re “being denied” something if you feel you’re entitled to whatever you want in the first place. If instead one only feels entitled to the stats they rolled/bought/assigned, then the bonuses are exactly that, bonuses. So your orc Wizard is stronger then they otherwise would have been instead of smarter than they otherwise would have been. So what? So play a strong Wizard and actually take a quarterstaff instead of the dagger and feel secure that, with level based ASIs you will still inevitably get that Int 20 eventually and still be just as smart as that gnome. That gnome ain’t got nothin on you but a head start is all. 💁♂️ You’ll get there, and you’ll be strong too. “Bonus.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
And by the fact that they've created races that get appropriate bonuses, they have made it justified to feel entitled to that bonus.
if someone gets nothing above a 13, the solution is simple. Let them roll again. I'm trying to get a campaign going on mondays and I am having players do 4d6k3r1 in order, no tasha's flaoting ASIs, and you have to pick your race and background before you roll. Must meet the prerequisite for the class you want to play (13 min in the main stat). One player rolled nothing above a 13 and like an 8 for their con. I had them reroll, because that was clearly an unviable character.
I generally prefer rolling stats because it can give you better numbers than point buy or standard array. But also I like point buy because then I know I won't get absolutely dog-shit stats and i can customize them. Standard array is shit and I don't understand people who use it.
the reason I am implementing the rolling system is because I want people to not come to the table with an idea in mind for the character they want. I don't want them to try and make some random, wack anime character they have in their head. I want them to have an actual idea. The randomness is fun too :) the player who only plays martials and wizards now gets a very high wisdom and has a terrible strength and middling dex? Guess cleric or druid it is! Get out of that comfort zone! :)
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
You say “appropriate bonuses” as if there are any inappropriate ones.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Appropriate bonuses: high value for your class. Inappropriate: low value.
Getting +2 Strength on a wizard, or +2 Intelligence on a barbarian, is not useless, but it is far less useful than the opposite.
If we want to talk psychology and how things actually effect behavior. Probably the reason it is interpreted as a punishment is that it's directly linked to a choice and so it's hard for people to separate the consequence from that choice. If for example you rolled races randomly then I don't think people would interpret it as a punishment but because they are being made to choose a race and then having their choice be sub optimal.
It is also taking something away. There is the simple pure dopamine rush of numbers go up but there is also diminishing returns from non key stats and the feat mechanic. Practically speaking a slightly stronger wizard is never going to be considered strong and probably won't actually be strong. Giving them a 10 instead of an 8 in most cases. We are talking a 5 % chance increase in a stat they won't really use, so it's practically non existent compared to their main stat which will often appear several times per action. At the same time using less level based stat increases can mean getting a feat which means players who have the lower key stats are often denied a very powerful and popular mechanic of the game if their race class combo does not give them the appropriate +2.
Obviously every party is different but on average you will find this effect quite strong and mainly see people doing certain race class combos with your occasional exception primarily when there is a boost to secondary stat usually dexterity or constitution. Races with strength and intelligence will be me the most type cast as these are often dump stats.
My advice is do one of the following:
That’s all a matter of perspective.
What if I want that +2 Str for my booming blade casting staff wielder?
Or what if I want to shore up a low stat?
Or because I just want to play an Orc Wizard and orcs are sposta be strong so I want the +2 in Strength?
Or what if my last character started with an 18 in their casting stat and by 4th level I had no advancement to look forward to in that regard other then PB bumps and this time I’m kegeling to enjoy some delayed gratification? 😉
Or what if it’s a table where others also have unoptimized stats and I don’t want to blow the bell curve for the DM?
Or what if….
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Even if your character starts with an 18 or even 20 every increase is also potentially a feat and people love feats. Even if you were the kind of person to not necessarily go for power, a feat could be something flavorful like languages and every 1 or two ability points is potentially a trade off for one of those. Then there is also multi classing which reduces the number of those increases you get. So I don't think very many people are likely to take that option because it limits your choices. Playing an orc wizard without a the racial +2 to int becomes like a tax from the range of things you can do with that wizard.
So your argument is that it’s okay for me to take feats as flavorful embellishments for my Wiz, but not the +2 Str for being an Orc. 🤔🤨 If you choose to see an unoptimized racial ASI as a tax then nothing I say will ever change your mind. But I choose to not see it that way, I choose to see it for what I fell it is, a “bonus” to that character’s Strength. I’ve provided several reasons why I might actually want that bonus, and I could go on. My point is, if one simply views the situation from a slightly different perspective then it isn’t a “punishment,” or a “tax” or any other such. It simply is what it is. It’s different than how you would do it, but that’s why I play at my table and you play at yours, because they each suit our individual views on what D&D is for us. It’s just different, but that doesn’t mean my perspective is any less valid than yours. Ne?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So you agree it's valid to call it a penalty? Or are you saying only your perspective is valid?
If you’re dead set on calling it a penalty then, as I already said, nothing I can ever say will change your mind. But I don’t see it as a penalty and I urge others not to either. If you have a problem with that then that’s a you problem, not a me problem.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The issue is that it's not the DM who decides whether something feels like a penalty, it's the players.
That is not what I said, I said the race takes the place of a feat or multi class so of course you can take a race instead its just that when we are talking about race class combos/ game balance, attaching an ability score bonus to race puts it in competition with both of those which is why the sub optimum races almost always lose out. This is especially true when you take into account the popularity of races like custom lineage which give a feat at level 1 instead of race features.
My issue I don't think it really hurts your choice to play a strong orc or similar trope to have a choice of stats or even no bonus stats from race at all. Where as empirically and for obvious reasons it does effect the variety of races and classes people choose in most games.
For one thing, the DM is a player, just with a muu—uuch bigger “character” sheet.
For another thing, I never argued that the DM decides any such thing. All I did was urge VampByDay not to personally view it as a penalty. You interposed yourself and started debating against my perspective, and I have obliged you because I like you. (We disagree on this point, but if I only interacted with people who already agree with me then life would be rather boring.)
Finally, feel free to disagree with any of my opinions, it’s still a free country. And voice your contrasting opinions, that’s the nature of healthy discourse. I request you extended me the same courtesy. Fair?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Which is why I urge people to view things from another perspective, to change the narrative. I explained it further in this other thread earlier today:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/138062-grave-domain-or-life-domain
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
sounds lame as all balls. I specifically said I don't like standard array, so ew. I don't care for point buy as a DM, really only as a player and purely as a fallback. Players like rolling dice, that's why they're in the game and why dice were made in the first place.
I didn't say there was a need for the tasha's stuff, I said I didn't allow it (except for changing out any profs you have like the hobgoblin's martial training.)
I was mostly responding to OP and their specific example with the no over 13's thing. But also, no. I would let someone reroll, unless we were playing OD&D or something. Gygax himself and the rest of TSR even put out some products (or one of the dragon magazines idk?) about alternate rolling methods and told people "if some player rolls like absolute trash, just have them reroll, there are things such as non-viable, DoA characters." and so, if someone gets a bunch of stats that clearly aren't going to be fun then I'd let them reroll. If we were specifically looking to play a game with middling stat characters then yeah whatever, but most of the time I'm not.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
The basic issue is that, while the game is totally playable without a starting 16 in your primary attribute, being straight up worse than other PCs at the same sort of thing they do feels like a penalty, regardless of whether it's mechanically a penalty, and the odds that none of your players feel that way is low.
At my table, I’m considered the most likely “power gamer” of the group. When the others are less inclined to munchkin than the guy saying munchkining is
unnecessarypointless, then I’m pretty confident in saying “none of my players feels that way.”Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The fact that this devolved into a discussion like that again... people, remember:
We all are different, like different things, and that's OK.
If you like fixed AS, go for it. If you don't, it's your game. No one can ever say that something is objectivelly better on something for YOUR fun.
No one is forcing you to play together and you're not gonna change each others mind, so, just stop wasting energy on those arguments, PLEASE.
Envy is human nature, and games are generally games, not self-improvement tools -- and if I'm going to try to use one as a self-improvement tool, "It's okay to be inferior" is neither a high priority of mine nor something they're well suited to teaching.