It's relevant because I'm saying that we needed progression from what we had in 2014, and what we got is regression.
You do know that those words have actual meanings don't you, they aren't just synonyms for "good" and "bad". Progression means changing to something new and different, whereas regression is reverted back to something that existed before. To revert to the fixed species ASIs is by definition regression, while changing to a new system - linking them to background rather than species is definitionally progression.
Once again, someone is misunderstanding what I'm saying... I NEVER said players and DMs had to be forced into using those scores. I'm saying they should be provided as options. OPTIONS.
If it’s just options then you can make all your Orcs strong and all your Elves dexterous
Okay, but what I'm saying is this: if a DM wants to a run a campaign in an official setting, then they should be provided with the ASIs for races of said settings. It could be in a book specifically for said setting, if WotC wanted to do that.
"regression" would imply that we somehow moved back and in the context carries the connotation of negativity -- that doing so is bad.
I use the word regressive specifically to refer to hybrid race mechanics, which did regress in a way. If you actually look at 0e documents, hybrid races didn't exist until Supplement 1 - Greyhawk, iirc.
No, you did not.
But, that aside, hybrid races didn't go away, either. So there still was no regression.
Your argument continues to boil down to "The Official Rules should add back in overt racism."
It ain't happening.
"No, you did not." The Hell do you mean? Because I didn't use the word "regressive" until hybrid race rules came up. If you're going to continue arguing, don't presume to understand what I'm saying when it's clear you don't.
And hybrid races didn't explicitly go away, but in terms of game mechanics, they might as well not exist...
My argument does not boil down to "the official rules should add back overt racism," because: 1. My entire argument is about races in the UAs in general, not just the ASIs, and a lot of the stuff I'm arguing for doesn't have anything to do with the racist ideas certain D&D concepts were based on. 2. Even if my issue was only with ASIs, it's STILL not overt racism. A good majority of the ASIs are based on in-lore creations that have nothing to do with that. For example, Aasimar and Tieflings had a CHA bonus because of their outer plane ancestry and how it supernaturally empowers them. Dragonborn have a bonus to STR and CHA because they're DRAGONborn... I'll admit, some of them were ORIGINALLY intended to reinforce certain racist tropes. Orcs, for example had their -2 INT even in 5e, to reflect racist ideas of non-white people. However, they got rid of that -2 and kept the bonuses not just for the sake of game balance, but also because with the cap for every ability score being at 20 anyway, no race is truly superior to any other. The Racial ASI as it is in 5e is there not to reinforce racist tropes, but to show that while some people might have natural abilities, everyone has the potential to grow to a maximum that is the same as everyone else's maximum. Is tying it to race a weird way to do that? A bit, yeah, but it flows better with the fantasy of living in a world with non-human humanoids.
They needed to go because they were blatantly racist. Both the half elf and half orc were mechanically superior to their parents in both ASI and features. It’s weird as hell when your really think about it. Again the differences in race shouldn’t effect your ASI. If a race is naturally stronger they get powerful build, if they can see in the dark they get darkvision. There is no reason an Orc shouldn’t be able to start with the highest possible intelligence. That’s still just racist. It’s good they got rid of the -2 penalty, but maybe my orc is a runt who became a scholar. He shouldn’t have a +2 Str.
It's relevant because I'm saying that we needed progression from what we had in 2014, and what we got is regression.
You do know that those words have actual meanings don't you, they aren't just synonyms for "good" and "bad". Progression means changing to something new and different, whereas regression is reverted back to something that existed before. To revert to the fixed species ASIs is by definition regression, while changing to a new system - linking them to background rather than species is definitionally progression.
Once again, someone is misunderstanding what I'm saying... I NEVER said players and DMs had to be forced into using those scores. I'm saying they should be provided as options. OPTIONS.
If it’s just options then you can make all your Orcs strong and all your Elves dexterous
Okay, but what I'm saying is this: if a DM wants to a run a campaign in an official setting, then they should be provided with the ASIs for races of said settings. It could be in a book specifically for said setting, if WotC wanted to do that.
DMs are provided with Stat blocks. If Orcs are usually strong all the Stat blocks will show that. ASI is for players.
It's relevant because I'm saying that we needed progression from what we had in 2014, and what we got is regression.
You do know that those words have actual meanings don't you, they aren't just synonyms for "good" and "bad". Progression means changing to something new and different, whereas regression is reverted back to something that existed before. To revert to the fixed species ASIs is by definition regression, while changing to a new system - linking them to background rather than species is definitionally progression.
Once again, someone is misunderstanding what I'm saying... I NEVER said players and DMs had to be forced into using those scores. I'm saying they should be provided as options. OPTIONS.
If it’s just options then you can make all your Orcs strong and all your Elves dexterous
Okay, but what I'm saying is this: if a DM wants to a run a campaign in an official setting, then they should be provided with the ASIs for races of said settings. It could be in a book specifically for said setting, if WotC wanted to do that.
DMs are provided with Stat blocks. If Orcs are usually strong all the Stat blocks will show that. ASI is for players.
Right... But ASI's also were intended to help DMs make NPCs. And not every character should use the same stat block.
It's relevant because I'm saying that we needed progression from what we had in 2014, and what we got is regression.
You do know that those words have actual meanings don't you, they aren't just synonyms for "good" and "bad". Progression means changing to something new and different, whereas regression is reverted back to something that existed before. To revert to the fixed species ASIs is by definition regression, while changing to a new system - linking them to background rather than species is definitionally progression.
Once again, someone is misunderstanding what I'm saying... I NEVER said players and DMs had to be forced into using those scores. I'm saying they should be provided as options. OPTIONS.
If it’s just options then you can make all your Orcs strong and all your Elves dexterous
Okay, but what I'm saying is this: if a DM wants to a run a campaign in an official setting, then they should be provided with the ASIs for races of said settings. It could be in a book specifically for said setting, if WotC wanted to do that.
DMs are provided with Stat blocks. If Orcs are usually strong all the Stat blocks will show that. ASI is for players.
Right... But ASI's also were intended to help DMs make NPCs. And not every character should use the same stat block.
Not really. ASI isn’t in the DMG. And the DM can create whatever NPCs they want. The DM isn’t using standard array or rolling for stats (unless they find that fun). Usually I’m swapping or reskinning stat blocks. Like ohh this Gith Zerth block looks like what I want them to fight, but they are dealing with deep gnomes right now. No problem it’s a deep gnome pugilist that deals thunder damage with each hit instead of psychic.
Well, it probably won't be in the new DMG. It is in fact in the current DMG in the npc stat blocks section. However, to be blunt: NPCs should not be generated in the first place, they should be designed, and just given whatever abilities seem appropriate.
It's relevant because I'm saying that we needed progression from what we had in 2014, and what we got is regression.
You do know that those words have actual meanings don't you, they aren't just synonyms for "good" and "bad". Progression means changing to something new and different, whereas regression is reverted back to something that existed before. To revert to the fixed species ASIs is by definition regression, while changing to a new system - linking them to background rather than species is definitionally progression.
Once again, someone is misunderstanding what I'm saying... I NEVER said players and DMs had to be forced into using those scores. I'm saying they should be provided as options. OPTIONS.
If it’s just options then you can make all your Orcs strong and all your Elves dexterous
Okay, but what I'm saying is this: if a DM wants to a run a campaign in an official setting, then they should be provided with the ASIs for races of said settings. It could be in a book specifically for said setting, if WotC wanted to do that.
DMs are provided with Stat blocks. If Orcs are usually strong all the Stat blocks will show that. ASI is for players.
Right... But ASI's also were intended to help DMs make NPCs. And not every character should use the same stat block.
Not really. ASI isn’t in the DMG. And the DM can create whatever NPCs they want. The DM isn’t using standard array or rolling for stats (unless they find that fun). Usually I’m swapping or reskinning stat blocks. Like ohh this Gith Zerth block looks like what I want them to fight, but they are dealing with deep gnomes right now. No problem it’s a deep gnome pugilist that deals thunder damage with each hit instead of psychic.
You're right, ASI isn't in the DMG, because NPC's that play like player characters exist, so DMs would use the PHB, which DMG encourages using. That's why instead of having villain stat blocks, they have villain subclasses in that one chapter. Oh, look, I can make my characters fight an Orc Cleric and he'll play like a level 12 or higher character so his Wis will still hit 20. And as an added bonus, he'll have a STR at a minimum of 10!
"regression" would imply that we somehow moved back and in the context carries the connotation of negativity -- that doing so is bad.
I use the word regressive specifically to refer to hybrid race mechanics, which did regress in a way. If you actually look at 0e documents, hybrid races didn't exist until Supplement 1 - Greyhawk, iirc.
No, you did not.
But, that aside, hybrid races didn't go away, either. So there still was no regression.
Your argument continues to boil down to "The Official Rules should add back in overt racism."
It ain't happening.
"No, you did not." The Hell do you mean? Because I didn't use the word "regressive" until hybrid race rules came up. If you're going to continue arguing, don't presume to understand what I'm saying when it's clear you don't.
And hybrid races didn't explicitly go away, but in terms of game mechanics, they might as well not exist...
My argument does not boil down to "the official rules should add back overt racism," because: 1. My entire argument is about races in the UAs in general, not just the ASIs, and a lot of the stuff I'm arguing for doesn't have anything to do with the racist ideas certain D&D concepts were based on. 2. Even if my issue was only with ASIs, it's STILL not overt racism. A good majority of the ASIs are based on in-lore creations that have nothing to do with that. For example, Aasimar and Tieflings had a CHA bonus because of their outer plane ancestry and how it supernaturally empowers them. Dragonborn have a bonus to STR and CHA because they're DRAGONborn... I'll admit, some of them were ORIGINALLY intended to reinforce certain racist tropes. Orcs, for example had their -2 INT even in 5e, to reflect racist ideas of non-white people. However, they got rid of that -2 and kept the bonuses not just for the sake of game balance, but also because with the cap for every ability score being at 20 anyway, no race is truly superior to any other. The Racial ASI as it is in 5e is there not to reinforce racist tropes, but to show that while some people might have natural abilities, everyone has the potential to grow to a maximum that is the same as everyone else's maximum. Is tying it to race a weird way to do that? A bit, yeah, but it flows better with the fantasy of living in a world with non-human humanoids.
They needed to go because they were blatantly racist. Both the half elf and half orc were mechanically superior to their parents in both ASI and features. It’s weird as hell when your really think about it. Again the differences in race shouldn’t effect your ASI. If a race is naturally stronger they get powerful build, if they can see in the dark they get darkvision. There is no reason an Orc shouldn’t be able to start with the highest possible intelligence. That’s still just racist. It’s good they got rid of the -2 penalty, but maybe my orc is a runt who became a scholar. He shouldn’t have a +2 Str.
Didn't even see this before, but the fact that you think they were both somehow superior mechanically says a lot about you as a player and honestly, your opinion is invalid.
Okay, but what I'm saying is this: if a DM wants to a run a campaign in an official setting, then they should be provided with the ASIs for races of said settings. It could be in a book specifically for said setting, if WotC wanted to do that.
"That" is exactly the problematic thing that many people asked them to stop doing (and they've said again and again that they're discontinuing the practice).
You can disagree, and say "it's not racist," and you're entitled to your opinion. But WotC has been pretty clear about this.
Okay, but what I'm saying is this: if a DM wants to a run a campaign in an official setting, then they should be provided with the ASIs for races of said settings. It could be in a book specifically for said setting, if WotC wanted to do that.
"That" is exactly the problematic thing that many people asked them to stop doing (and they've said again and again that they're discontinuing the practice).
You can disagree, and say "it's not racist," and you're entitled to your opinion. But WotC has been pretty clear about this.
It's problematic to ask for a little help making things lore accurate? That's not being anti-racist, that's just being pro-laziness. Sorry, but with how shite WotC is, it's clear that they don't really care. Some exec was probably like "hey, it's a little less ink and a little less thinking to worry about." Anything to save money in our capitalist hellscape.
I literally looked at the PHB and UA's when I wrote that reply. You're wrong. They're literally called ASI's at first level. Go read chapter 2 of the PHB and the first couple pages of the first 5.5e (calling it that because I feel like it) UAs. Also, the lore is not deprecated, because WotC is still using those settings.
Look at the 1st column of the 2nd page of the first OneD&D playtest document (Character Origins). First line of the Background Traits table: "Ability Score Bonus". So yes, the terminology did change in OneD&D. The thing you get at 1st level is no longer an ASI, it's an ASB. The things you get after 1st level are ASI, and they're now/currently a type of Feat.
While I may have been wrong about whether or not the 1st level thing in 5e was also called an ASI, it doesn't change that this statement is true:
Having it be related to background is perfectly reasonable, because Ability Scores are things that you can emphasize and develop ... and people do exactly that kind of thing around their careers (either as part of preparing for the career, and over time as they develop their niche within that career). If ASI's weren't an actual part of the game, then it could be argued that they cannot be developed over time, so you're stuck with some mumbojumbo about whether or not you were born with it .. but that argument just doesn't hold water given the actual rules of the game say it's a thing that people develop with some measure of effort (where you put your ASI).
ASI's show development: in both 5e and OneD&D, you get an opportunity for multiple ASI's after 1st level, which means ASI's are not solely intended to represent "inherent abilities" (as you tried to later assert) but the result of developing your abilities over time. And in OneD&D, they solely represent developed ability, and not starting ability (which is not coequal with inherent ability).
Which also means that, contrary to your statement, the definition of what an ASI is doesn't need to be changed to support my quoted statement. My statement is already true/valid under both the 5e and OneD&D uses of the term ASI. Ability Scores are things you can develop, and ASIs are the game mechanics of how you do that.
"regression" would imply that we somehow moved back and in the context carries the connotation of negativity -- that doing so is bad.
I use the word regressive specifically to refer to hybrid race mechanics, which did regress in a way. If you actually look at 0e documents, hybrid races didn't exist until Supplement 1 - Greyhawk, iirc.
No, you did not.
But, that aside, hybrid races didn't go away, either. So there still was no regression.
Your argument continues to boil down to "The Official Rules should add back in overt racism."
It ain't happening.
"No, you did not." The Hell do you mean? Because I didn't use the word "regressive" until hybrid race rules came up. If you're going to continue arguing, don't presume to understand what I'm saying when it's clear you don't.
And hybrid races didn't explicitly go away, but in terms of game mechanics, they might as well not exist...
My argument does not boil down to "the official rules should add back overt racism," because: 1. My entire argument is about races in the UAs in general, not just the ASIs, and a lot of the stuff I'm arguing for doesn't have anything to do with the racist ideas certain D&D concepts were based on. 2. Even if my issue was only with ASIs, it's STILL not overt racism. A good majority of the ASIs are based on in-lore creations that have nothing to do with that. For example, Aasimar and Tieflings had a CHA bonus because of their outer plane ancestry and how it supernaturally empowers them. Dragonborn have a bonus to STR and CHA because they're DRAGONborn... I'll admit, some of them were ORIGINALLY intended to reinforce certain racist tropes. Orcs, for example had their -2 INT even in 5e, to reflect racist ideas of non-white people. However, they got rid of that -2 and kept the bonuses not just for the sake of game balance, but also because with the cap for every ability score being at 20 anyway, no race is truly superior to any other. The Racial ASI as it is in 5e is there not to reinforce racist tropes, but to show that while some people might have natural abilities, everyone has the potential to grow to a maximum that is the same as everyone else's maximum. Is tying it to race a weird way to do that? A bit, yeah, but it flows better with the fantasy of living in a world with non-human humanoids.
If you understood the words you used, then perhaps you wouldn't use them incorrectly, and thus promote misunderstanding.
"might as well not exist" -- is not the same as not existing, and is an expression a minority opinion coming from someone who is advocating "add back in overt racism as an option, please".
You are arguing to add back into the game Ability Score increases for races. *EVERYTHING ELSE* still sits around that, and weaseling around it doesn't change that doing exactly that is asking for overt racism to be put back into the game. The idea of ability score increases on the basis of race is, all by itself, a racist concept. Full stop. it can ONLY ever reinforce racist tropes because the idea of them as a whole, is racist.
And all the rationales for why they should be there? Those are racist rationales. yes, even for fantasy creatures made up by people who exist in a real world that draws from the experiences and knowledge in that real world in order to create that fantasy.
You are arguing to add racism *back* into the game after they took it out, and you are using "well, they didn't take this stuff out" and "they didn't really care" and "but, no really, these less than human beings should have intelligence and size that show they are less than human beings but bigger and stronger so still useful to human beings" without ever once realizing that the same thing was said about actual human beings who also play this game.
So, you did it, You made me have to state the basic facts of a case you already lost because they were removed and they are not going to be coming back.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Okay, but what I'm saying is this: if a DM wants to a run a campaign in an official setting, then they should be provided with the ASIs for races of said settings. It could be in a book specifically for said setting, if WotC wanted to do that.
Who owns the official setting? WOTC.
WOTC said that those racial ability bonuses are no longer a thing. Therefore, those things no longer exist. Any rules or lore that says anything about them is no longer valid to the current state of the official setting nor official rules.
So it's not that they failed to provide them, it's that they no longer exist in the settings that WOTC owns... because WOTC said so, which they get to do because they own them.
Nothing stops you from house-ruling it as a regression to how things were done in the past ... but in those official settings, the thing you are asking for no longer exists. The burden to provide things for your house-rules is on you, not on them. BUT ... do not despair, for WOTC still makes the old, deprecated, archaic, material for past editions available via One Book Shelf. You can go right out and buy rules and setting materials for those past editions (if you don't already have them), and base your house-rules upon that material. You have to tools for regression right there within the reach of your grasp.
But saying they should provide these things to you? They can't fail to provide you something that doesn't exist. Race/lineage/species ability modifiers do not exist anymore.
I literally looked at the PHB and UA's when I wrote that reply. You're wrong. They're literally called ASI's at first level. Go read chapter 2 of the PHB and the first couple pages of the first 5.5e (calling it that because I feel like it) UAs. Also, the lore is not deprecated, because WotC is still using those settings.
Look at the 1st column of the 2nd page of the first OneD&D playtest document (Character Origins). First line of the Background Traits table: "Ability Score Bonus". So yes, the terminology did change in OneD&D. The thing you get at 1st level is no longer an ASI, it's an ASB. The things you get after 1st level are ASI, and they're now/currently a type of Feat.
While I may have been wrong about whether or not the 1st level thing in 5e was also called an ASI, it doesn't change that this statement is true:
Having it be related to background is perfectly reasonable, because Ability Scores are things that you can emphasize and develop ... and people do exactly that kind of thing around their careers (either as part of preparing for the career, and over time as they develop their niche within that career). If ASI's weren't an actual part of the game, then it could be argued that they cannot be developed over time, so you're stuck with some mumbojumbo about whether or not you were born with it .. but that argument just doesn't hold water given the actual rules of the game say it's a thing that people develop with some measure of effort (where you put your ASI).
ASI's show development: in both 5e and OneD&D, you get an opportunity for multiple ASI's after 1st level, which means ASI's are not solely intended to represent "inherent abilities" (as you tried to later assert) but the result of developing your abilities over time. And in OneD&D, they solely represent developed ability, and not starting ability (which is not coequal with inherent ability).
Which also means that, contrary to your statement, the definition of what an ASI is doesn't need to be changed to support my quoted statement. That statement is already true/valid under both the 5e and OneD&D uses of the term ASI. Ability Scores are things you can develop, and ASIs are the game mechanics of how you do that.
Okay, I'll give you that they changed it to an ASB in 5.5e, BUT that still only applies to background/1st level choice. Every level after that where you can get an ASI is still referred to as an ASI. Just checked the most recent UA. Also, I'll be honest, the word "bonus" could imply innate talent, rather than that gained through growth. That said, they did technically redefine it in the UA a little bit more explicitly through their word change, but in a way that doesn't exactly help their case.
And you're still missing something else: Point Buy/Standard Array are what's meant to reflect your training/experience/background. Why would the ASB need to reflect that as well? That doesn't make sense.
"regression" would imply that we somehow moved back and in the context carries the connotation of negativity -- that doing so is bad.
I use the word regressive specifically to refer to hybrid race mechanics, which did regress in a way. If you actually look at 0e documents, hybrid races didn't exist until Supplement 1 - Greyhawk, iirc.
No, you did not.
But, that aside, hybrid races didn't go away, either. So there still was no regression.
Your argument continues to boil down to "The Official Rules should add back in overt racism."
It ain't happening.
"No, you did not." The Hell do you mean? Because I didn't use the word "regressive" until hybrid race rules came up. If you're going to continue arguing, don't presume to understand what I'm saying when it's clear you don't.
And hybrid races didn't explicitly go away, but in terms of game mechanics, they might as well not exist...
My argument does not boil down to "the official rules should add back overt racism," because: 1. My entire argument is about races in the UAs in general, not just the ASIs, and a lot of the stuff I'm arguing for doesn't have anything to do with the racist ideas certain D&D concepts were based on. 2. Even if my issue was only with ASIs, it's STILL not overt racism. A good majority of the ASIs are based on in-lore creations that have nothing to do with that. For example, Aasimar and Tieflings had a CHA bonus because of their outer plane ancestry and how it supernaturally empowers them. Dragonborn have a bonus to STR and CHA because they're DRAGONborn... I'll admit, some of them were ORIGINALLY intended to reinforce certain racist tropes. Orcs, for example had their -2 INT even in 5e, to reflect racist ideas of non-white people. However, they got rid of that -2 and kept the bonuses not just for the sake of game balance, but also because with the cap for every ability score being at 20 anyway, no race is truly superior to any other. The Racial ASI as it is in 5e is there not to reinforce racist tropes, but to show that while some people might have natural abilities, everyone has the potential to grow to a maximum that is the same as everyone else's maximum. Is tying it to race a weird way to do that? A bit, yeah, but it flows better with the fantasy of living in a world with non-human humanoids.
If you understood the words you used, then perhaps you wouldn't use them incorrectly, and thus promote misunderstanding.
"might as well not exist" -- is not the same as not existing, and is an expression a minority opinion coming from someone who is advocating "add back in overt racism as an option, please".
You are arguing to add back into the game Ability Score increases for races. *EVERYTHING ELSE* still sits around that, and weaseling around it doesn't change that doing exactly that is asking for overt racism to be put back into the game. The idea of ability score increases on the basis of race is, all by itself, a racist concept. Full stop. it can ONLY ever reinforce racist tropes because the idea of them as a whole, is racist.
And all the rationales for why they should be there? Those are racist rationales. yes, even for fantasy creatures made up by people who exist in a real world that draws from the experiences and knowledge in that real world in order to create that fantasy.
You are arguing to add racism *back* into the game after they took it out, and you are using "well, they didn't take this stuff out" and "they didn't really care" and "but, no really, these less than human beings should have intelligence and size that show they are less than human beings but bigger and stronger so still useful to human beings" without ever once realizing that the same thing was said about actual human beings who also play this game.
So, you did it, You made me have to state the basic facts of a case you already lost because they were removed and they are not going to be coming back.
Okay, you're actively twisting my words and saying that I'm saying things I'm not. I never said anyone was lesser. You're saying that I'm using words incorrectly, applying them to contexts that they're not intended to be used for.
Look. It's clear to me that you either: 1. hate losing an argument so much that you'll pretend the other person is saying something they're clearly not. 2. don't have the intelligence or experience to understand what I'm talking about, or 3. need serious mental health care, because you're seeing things that aren't there.
Inb4 something about gaslighting comes up, I'm blocking you. You're wasting time that you could be using to make the world a better place trying to argue about D&D. And you supposedly have a job where you can actually do that.
It's problematic to ask for a little help making things lore accurate?
If WOTC says (as they did) that those modifiers no longer exist, then any implication of them that is in old lore is no longer valid lore. The fact that WOTC hasn't gotten around to updating and re-printing every last bit of old lore doesn't mean that the lore that contradicts the current rules isn't obsolete.
Let me re-emphasize that: Old Lore is obsolete if it contradicts the Current Rules.
WOTC has made it clear that when it comes to old lore that they don't intend to re-print, or haven't gotten around to re-printing yet, it's on us to do the conversion of old material (rules and lore) to match newly printed rules and lore, if we want to use them before WOTC gets around to doing conversions/updates themselves. What that means is:
1) WOTC stated that the rules changed: racial mods no longer exist in the current state of the game. 2) If you want to use old rules or old lore that doesn't fit #1, it is your burden to do that conversion as part of your house-rules, not theirs.
Okay, but what I'm saying is this: if a DM wants to a run a campaign in an official setting, then they should be provided with the ASIs for races of said settings. It could be in a book specifically for said setting, if WotC wanted to do that.
Who owns the official setting? WOTC.
WOTC said that those racial ability bonuses are no longer a thing. Therefore, those things no longer exist. Any rules or lore that says anything about them is no longer valid to the current state of the official setting nor official rules.
So it's not that they failed to provide them, it's that they no longer exist in the settings that WOTC owns... because WOTC said so, which they get to do because they own them.
Nothing stops you from house-ruling it as a regression to how things were done in the past ... but in those official settings, the thing you are asking for no longer exists. The burden to provide things for your house-rules is on you, not on them. BUT ... do not despair, for WOTC still makes the old, deprecated, archaic, material for past editions available via One Book Shelf. You can go right out and buy rules and setting materials for those past editions (if you don't already have them), and base your house-rules upon that material. You have to tools for regression right there within the reach of your grasp.
But saying they should provide these things to you? They can't fail to provide you something that doesn't exist. Race/lineage/species ability modifiers do not exist anymore.
You're right. WotC owns it and they can technically say it doesn't exist anymore. However, they never directly said "that lore doesn't exist anymore," except for with the two books they made non-canon, I think. If they did, please, send me a link.
I literally looked at the PHB and UA's when I wrote that reply. You're wrong. They're literally called ASI's at first level. Go read chapter 2 of the PHB and the first couple pages of the first 5.5e (calling it that because I feel like it) UAs. Also, the lore is not deprecated, because WotC is still using those settings.
Look at the 1st column of the 2nd page of the first OneD&D playtest document (Character Origins). First line of the Background Traits table: "Ability Score Bonus". So yes, the terminology did change in OneD&D. The thing you get at 1st level is no longer an ASI, it's an ASB. The things you get after 1st level are ASI, and they're now/currently a type of Feat.
While I may have been wrong about whether or not the 1st level thing in 5e was also called an ASI, it doesn't change that this statement is true:
Having it be related to background is perfectly reasonable, because Ability Scores are things that you can emphasize and develop ... and people do exactly that kind of thing around their careers (either as part of preparing for the career, and over time as they develop their niche within that career). If ASI's weren't an actual part of the game, then it could be argued that they cannot be developed over time, so you're stuck with some mumbojumbo about whether or not you were born with it .. but that argument just doesn't hold water given the actual rules of the game say it's a thing that people develop with some measure of effort (where you put your ASI).
ASI's show development: in both 5e and OneD&D, you get an opportunity for multiple ASI's after 1st level, which means ASI's are not solely intended to represent "inherent abilities" (as you tried to later assert) but the result of developing your abilities over time. And in OneD&D, they solely represent developed ability, and not starting ability (which is not coequal with inherent ability).
Which also means that, contrary to your statement, the definition of what an ASI is doesn't need to be changed to support my quoted statement. That statement is already true/valid under both the 5e and OneD&D uses of the term ASI. Ability Scores are things you can develop, and ASIs are the game mechanics of how you do that.
Okay, I'll give you that they changed it to an ASB in 5.5e,
BUT that still only applies to background/1st level choice. Every level after that where you can get an ASI is still referred to as an ASI.
Correct. Which means, because you can keep getting ASI's after 1st level, ASI doesn't mean "inherent ability". Not in 5e, and not in OneD&D.
Just checked the most recent UA. Also, I'll be honest, the word "bonus" could imply innate talent, rather than that gained through growth. That said, they did technically redefine it in the UA a little bit more explicitly through their word change, but in a way that doesn't exactly help their case.
This comes across like grasping at straws to try to cling to your premise instead of reading things for what they actually are. 1st level ability modifiers are no longer about inherent/biological/racial/lineage/species ability. They're about tailoring your character beyond the initial stat generation, with emphasis to how your background career emphasized certain ability scores over others.
And you're still missing something else: Point Buy/Standard Array are what's meant to reflect your training/experience/background.
I didn't miss anything. Point Buy and Standard Array have exactly one meaning: an alternative to rolling dice, so that there is more of a sense of fairness across characters instead of lucky die rolls creating imbalances between characters. You can use Point Buy to accomplish other goals aside from that, but "an alternative to the randomness of die rolls" is what those two options are meant to reflect.
Why would the ASB need to reflect that as well? That doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make sense because your premise (that Point Buy and Standard Array are meant to reflect anything other than "non-random ability score generation") isn't accurate.
Okay, but what I'm saying is this: if a DM wants to a run a campaign in an official setting, then they should be provided with the ASIs for races of said settings. It could be in a book specifically for said setting, if WotC wanted to do that.
Who owns the official setting? WOTC.
WOTC said that those racial ability bonuses are no longer a thing. Therefore, those things no longer exist. Any rules or lore that says anything about them is no longer valid to the current state of the official setting nor official rules.
So it's not that they failed to provide them, it's that they no longer exist in the settings that WOTC owns... because WOTC said so, which they get to do because they own them.
Nothing stops you from house-ruling it as a regression to how things were done in the past ... but in those official settings, the thing you are asking for no longer exists. The burden to provide things for your house-rules is on you, not on them. BUT ... do not despair, for WOTC still makes the old, deprecated, archaic, material for past editions available via One Book Shelf. You can go right out and buy rules and setting materials for those past editions (if you don't already have them), and base your house-rules upon that material. You have to tools for regression right there within the reach of your grasp.
But saying they should provide these things to you? They can't fail to provide you something that doesn't exist. Race/lineage/species ability modifiers do not exist anymore.
You're right. WotC owns it and they can technically say it doesn't exist anymore. However, they never directly said "that lore doesn't exist anymore," except for with the two books they made non-canon, I think. If they did, please, send me a link.
They don't need to de-canonize an entire book (or books). They said it isn't a thing anymore, so (at the level of individual factual statements within the lore, not at the level of entire books) any lore that doesn't agree with that statement isn't valid lore anymore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Okay, but what I'm saying is this: if a DM wants to a run a campaign in an official setting, then they should be provided with the ASIs for races of said settings. It could be in a book specifically for said setting, if WotC wanted to do that.
They needed to go because they were blatantly racist. Both the half elf and half orc were mechanically superior to their parents in both ASI and features. It’s weird as hell when your really think about it. Again the differences in race shouldn’t effect your ASI. If a race is naturally stronger they get powerful build, if they can see in the dark they get darkvision. There is no reason an Orc shouldn’t be able to start with the highest possible intelligence. That’s still just racist. It’s good they got rid of the -2 penalty, but maybe my orc is a runt who became a scholar. He shouldn’t have a +2 Str.
DMs are provided with Stat blocks. If Orcs are usually strong all the Stat blocks will show that. ASI is for players.
Right... But ASI's also were intended to help DMs make NPCs. And not every character should use the same stat block.
Not really. ASI isn’t in the DMG. And the DM can create whatever NPCs they want. The DM isn’t using standard array or rolling for stats (unless they find that fun). Usually I’m swapping or reskinning stat blocks. Like ohh this Gith Zerth block looks like what I want them to fight, but they are dealing with deep gnomes right now. No problem it’s a deep gnome pugilist that deals thunder damage with each hit instead of psychic.
Well, it probably won't be in the new DMG. It is in fact in the current DMG in the npc stat blocks section. However, to be blunt: NPCs should not be generated in the first place, they should be designed, and just given whatever abilities seem appropriate.
You're right, ASI isn't in the DMG, because NPC's that play like player characters exist, so DMs would use the PHB, which DMG encourages using. That's why instead of having villain stat blocks, they have villain subclasses in that one chapter. Oh, look, I can make my characters fight an Orc Cleric and he'll play like a level 12 or higher character so his Wis will still hit 20. And as an added bonus, he'll have a STR at a minimum of 10!
Didn't even see this before, but the fact that you think they were both somehow superior mechanically says a lot about you as a player and honestly, your opinion is invalid.
"That" is exactly the problematic thing that many people asked them to stop doing (and they've said again and again that they're discontinuing the practice).
You can disagree, and say "it's not racist," and you're entitled to your opinion. But WotC has been pretty clear about this.
It's problematic to ask for a little help making things lore accurate? That's not being anti-racist, that's just being pro-laziness. Sorry, but with how shite WotC is, it's clear that they don't really care. Some exec was probably like "hey, it's a little less ink and a little less thinking to worry about." Anything to save money in our capitalist hellscape.
Look at the 1st column of the 2nd page of the first OneD&D playtest document (Character Origins). First line of the Background Traits table: "Ability Score Bonus". So yes, the terminology did change in OneD&D. The thing you get at 1st level is no longer an ASI, it's an ASB. The things you get after 1st level are ASI, and they're now/currently a type of Feat.
While I may have been wrong about whether or not the 1st level thing in 5e was also called an ASI, it doesn't change that this statement is true:
ASI's show development: in both 5e and OneD&D, you get an opportunity for multiple ASI's after 1st level, which means ASI's are not solely intended to represent "inherent abilities" (as you tried to later assert) but the result of developing your abilities over time. And in OneD&D, they solely represent developed ability, and not starting ability (which is not coequal with inherent ability).
Which also means that, contrary to your statement, the definition of what an ASI is doesn't need to be changed to support my quoted statement. My statement is already true/valid under both the 5e and OneD&D uses of the term ASI. Ability Scores are things you can develop, and ASIs are the game mechanics of how you do that.
The lore is also problematic, which is why it's being removed or revised.
If you understood the words you used, then perhaps you wouldn't use them incorrectly, and thus promote misunderstanding.
"might as well not exist" -- is not the same as not existing, and is an expression a minority opinion coming from someone who is advocating "add back in overt racism as an option, please".
You are arguing to add back into the game Ability Score increases for races. *EVERYTHING ELSE* still sits around that, and weaseling around it doesn't change that doing exactly that is asking for overt racism to be put back into the game. The idea of ability score increases on the basis of race is, all by itself, a racist concept. Full stop. it can ONLY ever reinforce racist tropes because the idea of them as a whole, is racist.
And all the rationales for why they should be there? Those are racist rationales. yes, even for fantasy creatures made up by people who exist in a real world that draws from the experiences and knowledge in that real world in order to create that fantasy.
You are arguing to add racism *back* into the game after they took it out, and you are using "well, they didn't take this stuff out" and "they didn't really care" and "but, no really, these less than human beings should have intelligence and size that show they are less than human beings but bigger and stronger so still useful to human beings" without ever once realizing that the same thing was said about actual human beings who also play this game.
So, you did it, You made me have to state the basic facts of a case you already lost because they were removed and they are not going to be coming back.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Who owns the official setting? WOTC.
WOTC said that those racial ability bonuses are no longer a thing. Therefore, those things no longer exist. Any rules or lore that says anything about them is no longer valid to the current state of the official setting nor official rules.
So it's not that they failed to provide them, it's that they no longer exist in the settings that WOTC owns... because WOTC said so, which they get to do because they own them.
Nothing stops you from house-ruling it as a regression to how things were done in the past ... but in those official settings, the thing you are asking for no longer exists. The burden to provide things for your house-rules is on you, not on them. BUT ... do not despair, for WOTC still makes the old, deprecated, archaic, material for past editions available via One Book Shelf. You can go right out and buy rules and setting materials for those past editions (if you don't already have them), and base your house-rules upon that material. You have to tools for regression right there within the reach of your grasp.
But saying they should provide these things to you? They can't fail to provide you something that doesn't exist. Race/lineage/species ability modifiers do not exist anymore.
Okay, I'll give you that they changed it to an ASB in 5.5e, BUT that still only applies to background/1st level choice. Every level after that where you can get an ASI is still referred to as an ASI. Just checked the most recent UA. Also, I'll be honest, the word "bonus" could imply innate talent, rather than that gained through growth. That said, they did technically redefine it in the UA a little bit more explicitly through their word change, but in a way that doesn't exactly help their case.
And you're still missing something else: Point Buy/Standard Array are what's meant to reflect your training/experience/background. Why would the ASB need to reflect that as well? That doesn't make sense.
Okay, you're actively twisting my words and saying that I'm saying things I'm not. I never said anyone was lesser. You're saying that I'm using words incorrectly, applying them to contexts that they're not intended to be used for.
Look. It's clear to me that you either: 1. hate losing an argument so much that you'll pretend the other person is saying something they're clearly not. 2. don't have the intelligence or experience to understand what I'm talking about, or 3. need serious mental health care, because you're seeing things that aren't there.
Inb4 something about gaslighting comes up, I'm blocking you. You're wasting time that you could be using to make the world a better place trying to argue about D&D. And you supposedly have a job where you can actually do that.
If WOTC says (as they did) that those modifiers no longer exist, then any implication of them that is in old lore is no longer valid lore. The fact that WOTC hasn't gotten around to updating and re-printing every last bit of old lore doesn't mean that the lore that contradicts the current rules isn't obsolete.
Let me re-emphasize that: Old Lore is obsolete if it contradicts the Current Rules.
WOTC has made it clear that when it comes to old lore that they don't intend to re-print, or haven't gotten around to re-printing yet, it's on us to do the conversion of old material (rules and lore) to match newly printed rules and lore, if we want to use them before WOTC gets around to doing conversions/updates themselves. What that means is:
1) WOTC stated that the rules changed: racial mods no longer exist in the current state of the game.
2) If you want to use old rules or old lore that doesn't fit #1, it is your burden to do that conversion as part of your house-rules, not theirs.
You're right. WotC owns it and they can technically say it doesn't exist anymore. However, they never directly said "that lore doesn't exist anymore," except for with the two books they made non-canon, I think. If they did, please, send me a link.
Correct. Which means, because you can keep getting ASI's after 1st level, ASI doesn't mean "inherent ability". Not in 5e, and not in OneD&D.
This comes across like grasping at straws to try to cling to your premise instead of reading things for what they actually are. 1st level ability modifiers are no longer about inherent/biological/racial/lineage/species ability. They're about tailoring your character beyond the initial stat generation, with emphasis to how your background career emphasized certain ability scores over others.
I didn't miss anything. Point Buy and Standard Array have exactly one meaning: an alternative to rolling dice, so that there is more of a sense of fairness across characters instead of lucky die rolls creating imbalances between characters. You can use Point Buy to accomplish other goals aside from that, but "an alternative to the randomness of die rolls" is what those two options are meant to reflect.
It doesn't make sense because your premise (that Point Buy and Standard Array are meant to reflect anything other than "non-random ability score generation") isn't accurate.
They don't need to de-canonize an entire book (or books). They said it isn't a thing anymore, so (at the level of individual factual statements within the lore, not at the level of entire books) any lore that doesn't agree with that statement isn't valid lore anymore.