Initial ABI from class not race

[Ryuken]

With Tasha's options for creations allowing more fluidity, has there even been thoughts of eliminating the race/species ABI and basing it on the class? A +2 to one ability that is tied to the class.

For example:

fighters STR or DEX
barbarians STR or CON
bard CHA or DEX
etc.

Basically, using the top 2 abilities suggested in the quick-build section.

IMO, this would make the choice of race/species more roleplaying or background supportive. It would represent training or experiences that elevated that 0-level commoner to a 1st level adventurer.

[GooeyChewie]

The One D&D playtest materials have the initial ability score improvements as part of the background rather than the race/species. Assuming that part of the playtest makes it through to One D&D, you will be able to apply the ability score increase to ability scores needed by your class (and will likely do so most of the time).

[Keltest]

Personally I'm opposed to homogenizing characters like that. Being a fighter who is a little bit smarter than normal because I'm a high elf is flavorful. Being a fighter who is strong (or fast) because I'm a fighter is boring. All fighters are strong (or fast). Being smarter than the average bear fighter is one of the ways I can use to express my character's personality.

Backgrounds are better than class, but still not ideal IMO. "Im tough because I'm 7 feet tall and huge" makes more sense as an intrinsic trait than "im tough because I hauled boxes as my day job for a while." or whatever your particular stat-background combo says.

[Anymage]

Personally I'm opposed to homogenizing characters like that. Being a fighter who is a little bit smarter than normal because I'm a high elf is flavorful. Being a fighter who is strong (or fast) because I'm a fighter is boring. All fighters are strong (or fast). Being smarter than the average bear fighter is one of the ways I can use to express my character's personality.

Backgrounds are better than class, but still not ideal IMO. "Im tough because I'm 7 feet tall and huge" makes more sense as an intrinsic trait than "im tough because I hauled boxes as my day job for a while." or whatever your particular stat-background combo says.

One of the big problems with this is that the fighter who's a bit smarter has no mechanical benefit for being so, while a fighter who's a bit stronger can enjoy +1 to all their important rolls for a good chunk of levels. (Which, given that most games don't run much past tier two, can mean the difference can last for a character's whole career.) In practice, this discourages high elf fighters from anybody who knows their way around the system and sets back the high elf fighters of players who for one reason or another aren't as up on their op-fu.

Ideally WotC would create options that are mechanically distinct, balanced against each other, and not to fully of fiddly math that it gets in the way of casually picking up the game. That's not the case. And while I'm not the biggest fan of how it was all implemented, in principle I support letting the player have the character they want be functional as quickly out of chargen as possible.

[Witty Username]

I am personally more of a fan of eliminating ASIs entirely, narratively and mechanically they don't serve alot of purpose for me, my table uses rolled stats, and the noise of rolling is greater than the +1s and 2s in tertiary stats. And most of the time in rolled the best roll is the primary so 16+ is decently reliable.

[KillingTime]

I like the one from each mechanic.
+1 (choice of 2) from lineage
+1 (choice of 2) from class
+1 (choice of 2) from background
Can all potentially stack to a max of +2

Want a burly half orc wizard?
Pick scholar background and take +1 Str from half orc and +2 int from wiz + scholar combined.

Want a nimble tortle monk?
Take +1 Wis from tortle, +1 dex from monk and +1 con from hermit.

A few of the lineages would need rebalancing- half elf I'm looking at you...
And obviously the backgrounds would all need a rework.
But I think this gives a lot more options without turning everything into a blurred generic mess.

[diplomancer]

I think it should either come from Race (representing average variation between individuals of different species), or be left entirely free.

Preferably both (i.e the books tell us what is the average variation of a race, and further adds that PCs can buck the trend if they want to, so they can add their ASIs however they want- this requires a slight adjustment of Mountain Dwarves and Half-Elves in 5e, i.e, they should be downgraded to +2,+1 in any score, or the assigned scores) but works mostly fine, specially since they've adjusted the Yuan-Ti in MPMM.

I definitely DON'T want them coming from class. If I want to play a not too smart wizard, I want to have that choice.

[nickl_2000]

Many other systems do exactly this. Nothing wrong with it, although with the Tasha's changes it isn't necessary since you can pick what you want anyways.

[KillingTime]

I definitely DON'T want them coming from class. If I want to play a not too smart wizard, I want to have that choice.

I'm not sure how this is any different from wanting to play a weakling half-orc or a socially awkward half-elf.

If you have a choice of two stats on each then you can always pick the secondary stat to lean away from the trope.

[stoutstien]

I really like how WWN does it. Primarily Ability scores are a much smaller portion of the core maths so you don't feel the need to hyper focus. It is also set on a growing budget so even if you want to do so it cost you increasingly more resources.

The second little fun bit is backgrounds do have access to additional ability score bonuses past the base roll/array but only if they choose to roll it out rather than select from the list.

Some of the non human races have some built in +/- to stats options but are more akin to a flaw/perk system.

[diplomancer]

I'm not sure how this is any different from wanting to play a weakling half-orc or a socially awkward half-elf.



Because, as I've said, I like racial ASI not so much to limit character concepts (I'm quite neutral on that, and as a player will happily use floating ASIs if DMs allow it, or, with a few exceptions, let players choose freely if I'm DMing), but to establish variations from the human average. It's world building.


If you have a choice of two stats on each then you can always pick the secondary stat to lean away from the trope.

And what would the secondary stat of Wizards be? The most obvious choices from a mechanical point of view, Dex or Con, are also weird at world building, as it implies a non trivial amount of wizards are more beefy/agile than the average, which is just weird.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

And what would the secondary stat of Wizards be? The most obvious choices from a mechanical point of view, Dex or Con, are also weird at world building, as it implies a non trivial amount of wizards are more beefy/agile than the average, which is just weird.

Wisdom would make the most sense, since that's what they get for their saving throws.

That being said, Tasha's seems like the best way to deal with this. Just give the players freedom and they can come up with whatever explanation they want for those ability scores. Locking people in more just serves to restrict creativity, both narratively and mechanically. Locking your ASI increase to your class prevents you from doing irregular class builds, for example, making a Strength monk, or a Dex Paladin. Too restrictive and doesn't really add a major benefit to make it worth the restriction.

[Snails]

Because, as I've said, I like racial ASI not so much to limit character concepts (I'm quite neutral on that, and as a player will happily use floating ASIs if DMs allow it, or, with a few exceptions, let players choose freely if I'm DMing), but to establish variations from the human average. It's world building.

That is fine for NPCs -- these elves are more agile than those human villagers, and it is apparent when you see how their huntsmen perform.

When it comes to PCs, though, I find these little boosts nothing more than fodder for the uninteresting kind of minmaxing. Differences are better expressed by meaty abilities like Mask of the Wild (Wood Elf) or Gnome Cunning.

If I want to play, say, a clumsy halfling, it is necessary that such a PC be mechanically punished?

[KorvinStarmast]

With Tasha's options for creations allowing more fluidity, has there even been thoughts of eliminating the race/species ABI and basing it on the class? A +2 to one ability that is tied to the class.

For example:

fighters STR or DEX
barbarians STR or CON
bard CHA or DEX
etc.

Basically, using the top 2 abilities suggested in the quick-build section.

IMO, this would make the choice of race/species more roleplaying or background supportive. It would represent training or experiences that elevated that 0-level commoner to a 1st level adventurer. 13th Age has a nice char build feature similar to what you are looking at.

Your Race gives you a +2 in either X or Y depending on race
Your Class choice gives you a +2 in A or B depending on class.

You can easily morph that to:
Your Class gives you a +2 in either X or Y.
Your Race gives you a +1 in either A or B.

That way, if you play a given class your 'predilection for X or Y' informs your class choice, or can, and your race will slightly adjust that.


I like the one from each mechanic.
+1 (choice of 2) from lineage
+1 (choice of 2) from class
+1 (choice of 2) from background
Can all potentially stack to a max of +2 I made almost this exact suggestion in the D&Done feedback I offered on their chargen bit.

[diplomancer]

That is fine for NPCs -- these elves are more agile than those human villagers, and it is apparent when you see how their huntsmen perform.

When it comes to PCs, though, I find these little boosts nothing more than fodder for the uninteresting kind of minmaxing. Differences are better expressed by meaty abilities like Mask of the Wild (Wood Elf) or Gnome Cunning.

If I want to play, say, a clumsy halfling, it is necessary that such a PC be mechanically punished?

But that"s what I've been saying the whole time: defined racial ASIs(as a world building deviation from the human average), with the information "all PCs can deviate from this, and get +2,+1, or 3 +1s, to whatever stats they want".

[Witty Username]

Because, as I've said, I like racial ASI not so much to limit character concepts (I'm quite neutral on that, and as a player will happily use floating ASIs if DMs allow it, or, with a few exceptions, let players choose freely if I'm DMing), but to establish variations from the human average. It's world building.


Wouldn't class bonuses also be world building, in a "you must be this tall to ride kinda way" a wizard for example is generally not going to be int 3 normally, but a int bonus or stat prerequisite sells that there is some need for the stat from a lore end?

I don't care is a fair enough response, I just don't see how getting from one is superior to the other on that front.

[Snowbluff]

I'd rather no ASI would be chained to specific ability given by the class. A lot of builds people enjoy have them fiddle with what their favored stats are as is. This would really just amount to putting people in a box.

[animorte]

And all of this is why having abilities directly apply to skills and combat causes issues for people that want to have more depth to their character than just numbers.

Having a not-so-smart Wizard, for example, shouldn't require your spell save DC to plummet. Having a smart Fighter shouldn't expect you to dump a necessary physical stat, and then be less combat effective, just to portray intellect.

Personally, I put the stats where it makes sense for my class to be effective. I role-play the character as their motivation makes sense to me. Most of the time these align, but that is not a prerequisite to fun.

[KillingTime]

Having a not-so-smart Wizard, for example, shouldn't require your spell save DC to plummet.


Errr...
Yes. It should.

I totally get it that people want to subvert tropes and play unusual characters.
But if you want to play a class whose entire shtick is their smarts and book learning, then playing them dumb is gonna cause issues and that's your problem, not the game. If you want to do it... go ahead. But don't complain if the game penalises you for it.

In the real world, people who can't do maths don't become rocket scientists, just like people who aren't fast and strong tend not to be pro rugby players, and people without any musical chops and charisma are highly unlikely to be stadium-filling rock stars.
(Yes yes I know... DnD is not a real world simulation)

If anything, class is far more important than lineage regarding what you're likely to be good at.
I think Tasha's was a step in the right direction, but I think not having class and background contribute is an opportunity missed.

[animorte]

Errr...
Yes. It should.

I totally get it that people want to subvert tropes and play unusual characters.
But if you want to play a class whose entire shtick is their smarts and book learning, then playing them dumb is gonna cause issues and that's your problem, not the game. If you want to do it... go ahead. But don't complain if the game penalises you for it.

In the real world, people who can't do maths don't become rocket scientists, just like people who aren't fast and strong tend not to be pro rugby players, and people without any musical chops and charisma are highly unlikely to be stadium-filling rock stars.
(Yes yes I know... DnD is not a real world simulation)

If anything, class is far more important than lineage regarding what you're likely to be good at.
I think Tasha's was a step in the right direction, but I think not having class and background contribute is an opportunity missed.
Actually, have you seen many "defeating the odds" success stories?

In which people have a really low IQ, barely graduate high school, but have hopes and dreams so they work really hard and become a doctor or an engineer.

Those stories of people having serious leg/spine issues for one reason or another and are determined to compete in track anyway, so they work really hard.

As far as your musical statement, there are plenty stars out there lacking in charisma and might just have a really noticeable talent. And it's debatable how much talent is really out there today considering how much electronics and software can make up for, but you know there's something for everybody...

It's a lot more about hard work than natural ability. Even the people who are gifted tend to preach that.

Otherwise, how would you rate Intelligence such that it applies to spell save DC and not allow them to be lacking? The guy with zero situational awareness but can remember every number he's every read/seen in exact sequence? The person who can't read, but can still recite word for word a book they've only heard once?

There are clear exceptions to your statements in the real world, I don't even need to pretend or step into the game for that.

[Keltest]

Actually, have you seen many "defeating the odds" success stories?

In which people have a really low IQ, barely graduate high school, but have hopes and dreams so they work really hard and become a doctor or an engineer.

Those stories of people having serious leg/spine issues for one reason or another and are determined to compete in track anyway, so they work really hard.

As far as your musical statement, there are plenty stars out there lacking in charisma and might just have a really noticeable talent. And it's debatable how much talent is really out there today considering how much electronics and software can make up for, but you know there's something for everybody...

It's a lot more about hard work than natural ability. Even the people who are gifted tend to preach that.

Otherwise, how would you rate Intelligence such that it applies to spell save DC and not allow them to be lacking? The guy with zero situational awareness but can remember every number he's every read/seen in exact sequence? The person who can't read, but can still recite word for word a book they've only heard once?

There are clear exceptions to your statements in the real world, I don't even need to pretend or step into the game for that.

Irrespective of anything else, D&D is a team game. If you are deliberately handicapping yourself for flavor or whatever, you are essentially antagonizing the other real people around the table. Don't do that. You dont have to be 100% optimal, but you do have to at least be competent.

[animorte]

Irrespective of anything else, D&D is a team game. If you are deliberately handicapping yourself for flavor or whatever, you are essentially antagonizing the other real people around the table. Don't do that. You dont have to be 100% optimal, but you do have to at least be competent.
That's not what I'm saying. Why should I not be allowed to play a Wizard with 18 Int, that's still lacking in some obvious intellectual area? Maybe he's just good at reading and kind of garbage at everything else?

My point is you should have the ability scores fine, but you have the option role-play it how you want.

[Keltest]

That's not what I'm saying. Why should I not be allowed to play a Wizard with 18 Int, that's still lacking in some obvious intellectual area? Maybe he's just good at reading and kind of garbage at everything else?

My point is you should have the ability scores fine, but you have the option role-play it how you want.

18 int is peak native human intelligence, and its certainly not a "defying the odds success story."

[animorte]

18 int is peak native human intelligence, and its certainly not a "defying the odds success story."
You skipped over the last part of my long comment then. They have a term:


idiot savant: a person who has exceptional aptitude in one particular field, such as music or mathematics, despite having significant impairment in other areas of intellectual or social functioning.

Again, why not?

Yes, it is a team game, and I have no intention of making a character that is really bad at the one thing they're actually supposed to be good. That part is not in debate. It shouldn't force me to role-play my character in one specific way though.

Yes, I know more things contribute to your character than just their ability scores.

[Keltest]

You skipped over the last part of my long comment then. They have a term:



Again, why not?

Yes, it is a team game, and I have no intention of making a character that is really bad at the one thing they're actually supposed to be good. That part is not in debate. It shouldn't force me to role-play my character in one specific way though.

Yes, I know more things contribute to your character than just their ability scores.

They call that a sorcerer then.

More seriously, my point still stands. If somebody came up to my table and said they wanted to be the guy who was defined by being smart and studious, except theyre going to be an idiot and incompetent outside of their class features, I would reject the character outright. Never make a character that could be a hinderance to your party as part of the fundamental design.

[Mastikator]

Skill expert lets you gain an expertise in a single skill. At low level it lets you be competent in spite of having a weak associated ability score. At high level it's better than having a high ability score. But an idiot savant will never be as good as a genius savant. I'm ok with that.

[animorte]

They call that a sorcerer then.

More seriously, my point still stands. If somebody came up to my table and said they wanted to be the guy who was defined by being smart and studious, except theyre going to be an idiot and incompetent outside of their class features, I would reject the character outright. Never make a character that could be a hinderance to your party as part of the fundamental design.
Role-playing your character to be studious, but otherwise inept is irrelevant to whether or not they would be a hindrance to the party. If being a hindrance to you means low intellect, but they have high intellect (because they're a Wizard and should), the problem is solved.

Honestly, is that more of a problem than the Barbarian rushing head-long into the fray (resulting in a near TPK) just because he has 8 Int and doesn't know any better?

Just to be clear, I've never played a Wizard, but could equally make the argument for a Sorcerer being not-your-standard-charisma eccentric guy, while still having high Charisma stat.

I'll grant you, if somebody outright just wants to be a dumb Wizard, I need to know why and how they're planning to do this. Do you care what the motivation for this character is or are you just attempting a silly trope? If it's just saying "dumb Wizard" without any additional thought, that's a red flag.

TL;DR: All that aside, I feel this this is getting a bit more about preference than anything that actually pertains to the functions of the game. Suffice it to say, there are obviously different ways to portray intellect/charisma/etc. and a person should not be restricted to only one perception.

[Willie the Duck]

13th Age has a nice char build feature similar to what you are looking at.
Your Race gives you a +2 in either X or Y depending on race
Your Class choice gives you a +2 in A or B depending on class.
A theoretical model I kinda like is: your race has a 'commonly associated stat,' as does your class. You can put a +2 in one of those stats. That means that you will find strong orc fighters and strong elven fighters, but you will find more strong orc wizards than strong elven ones. This eliminates any pigeonholed-race issue, gives a (usually minor) benefit of playing against type, and lets you play a clumsy elf or weak orc or whatnot if you want to.


But that"s what I've been saying the whole time: defined racial ASIs(as a world building deviation from the human average), with the information "all PCs can deviate from this, and get +2,+1, or 3 +1s, to whatever stats they want".
Or this. This too. I tend to hew to the notion that the character-creation rules aren't demographic modelling systems, and shouldn't by treated as such or limited by any constraints that treating them as such would entail. If race were to influence attributes, honestly I think it'd be better for it to focus on minimums and maximums rather than pluses or minuses (although even then, PCs are supposed to buck trends).



I totally get it that people want to subvert tropes and play unusual characters.
But if you want to play a class whose entire shtick is their smarts and book learning, then playing them dumb is gonna cause issues and that's your problem, not the game. If you want to do it... go ahead. But don't complain if the game penalises you for it.
Counter point: At the same time, the game does not have to be as directly attribute focused as it is. That's a specific design decision that doesn't need to be the case. The version(s) I started with (BX and BECMI) had Strength which pretty inarguably made you better at being a fighter, but the other stats gave odds-and-end other benefits and then contributed to your primary class by... making you advance in said class 5-10% faster. The original game didn't even have that -- the three classes each had an attribute which (excepting extra languages for Intelligence) did nothing but increase your XP accumulation (Dex, Con, and Cha having other features). In a way, I like that model better* -- the primary method I know how good your fighter is at fighter-ing is their level as a fighter. There are certain tropes (not even subversions of tropes) that this better facilitates -- the doddering old wizard (who still remembers how to do magic, but couldn't 'know-things' their way out of a paper bag); the young, enthusiastic squire who rises to become a renowned warrior (I'm thinking Taran from The Chronicles of Prydain). There are certainly reasons not to do so when designing a game, but I can see several reasons why you would.
*full disclosure, I'm also a fan of the basic idea of attributes doing less, as I consider a number between 3-18 (with few if anyone electing to put less than 14 in the stats they are most apt to use) to be one of the more boring ways you can distinguish two characters.

[GooeyChewie]

Otherwise, how would you rate Intelligence such that it applies to spell save DC and not allow them to be lacking? The guy with zero situational awareness but can remember every number he's every read/seen in exact sequence? The person who can't read, but can still recite word for word a book they've only heard once?

Wisdom and Charisma are mental stats as well. Zero situational awareness? That’s low Wisdom (and thus Perception), not low Intelligence. You can absolutely play a Wizard with low Wisdom and Charisma without impacting your primary role in the party.

If you want to play a wizard who has low Intelligence, your best bet is probably to play a character who is mechanically a Sorcerer (as Keltest suggested) but who considers themselves a wizard from a fluff perspective. Or if you really want the Wizard mechanics, work with your DM to see if they will allow you to use an alternate spellcasting ability score.

[Slipjig]

One of the big problems with this is that the fighter who's a bit smarter has no mechanical benefit for being so, while a fighter who's a bit stronger can enjoy +1 to all their important rolls for a good chunk of levels. (Which, given that most games don't run much past tier two, can mean the difference can last for a character's whole career.) In practice, this discourages high elf fighters from anybody who knows their way around the system and sets back the high elf fighters of players who for one reason or another aren't as up on their op-fu.

But honestly... that kind of makes sense? I mean, your elf can still be a badass swordsman, as represented by a high to-hit bonus, a big HP pool, and good AC. But when it comes to straight-up smashy-smashy (or lifting a portcullis) the 7' tall 275 lbs Half-Orc SHOULD be better at it than the 130 lbs elf, let alone the gnome.

It should be okay that not every race/class combo can be optimized to the same extent. If you WANT to play a Pixie Barbarian, I would love to have you at my table, because that sounds awesome. But it's extremely destructive to verisimilitude to allow that Pixie to start out with the same 16 STR that the Goliath has.

[Slipjig]

And all of this is why having abilities directly apply to skills and combat causes issues for people that want to have more depth to their character than just numbers.

Having a not-so-smart Wizard, for example, shouldn't require your spell save DC to plummet.

I have to disagree with you here. If you choose to play a low-INT Wizard, then you are choosing to play somebody who is a not-very-good wizard. If you play a low-DEX and low-STR Fighter, you are choosing to play somebody who is a below-average fighter, regardless of any training they have received.

There is a huge amount of humor and pathos to be mined from characters who are determined to do something they just aren't very good at. But allowing the character to be just as effective as the optimized characters after you CHOSE to make them a clumsy weakling totally undercuts that.

[animorte]

It's interesting that each person is finding a different statement of mine to take out of context without reading the rest of what's there. So me trying to respond is correcting a thing that I've already stated, that was somehow overlooked. Yes, it's a hindrance to put in a low stat that should be your primary. No, I do not encourage this.

I get it. Apparently there is only one perspective by which each ability score can be defined. It just seems incredibly short-sighted and lacking in creativity to me. /endrant

[GooeyChewie]

It's interesting that each person is finding a different statement of mine to take out of context without reading the rest of what's there. So me trying to respond is correcting a thing that I've already stated, that was somehow overlooked. Yes, it's a hindrance to put in a low stat that should be your primary. No, I do not encourage this.

I only quoted what I felt was the most salient point, but I did read the rest of what you wrote. Your response here makes me think I didn’t understand what your wrote, but I did read it all.


I get it. Apparently there is only one perspective by which each ability score can be defined. It just seems incredibly short-sighted and lacking in creativity to me. /endrant

The reason D&D uses six ability scores instead of two (physical and mental) is precisely because there are different perspectives from which physical and mental acumen can be defined. D&D doesn’t include a character’s overall intelligence (non-game term) in Intelligence (game term); Wisdom and Charisma play a role in the mental side of role-play as well.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Personally I'm opposed to homogenizing characters like that. Being a fighter who is a little bit smarter than normal because I'm a high elf is flavorful. Being a fighter who is strong (or fast) because I'm a fighter is boring. All fighters are strong (or fast). Being smarter than the average bear fighter is one of the ways I can use to express my character's personality.

So play a smarter fighter. Choose to put a higher stat there. Let's assume standard array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. Then either a High Elf +2 Dex, +1 Int. Or in a new area maybe we have a floating +1 and a +2 Dex or Str for Fighter. Either way you want a high Int Fighter.

Optimization is going to look like:

H.Elf Dex Fighter: 10, 16, 13, 16, 12, 9
H.Elf Str Fighter: 15, 11, 14, 14, 12, 10

Notice I didn't put the 15 automatically into Dex, you move your stats around. I do it all the time. Heck, with the more open stat assignment I don't even care about what my class needs, I just put the bonuses where they'll help. I end up with a 9 and don't really want to deal with negatives? I put the +1 where that 9 goes. I put the +2 where it'll tip a stat. It's just all about what I want to build and imagine, not what's forced on me by a certain race's stat boosts.

[animorte]

I only quoted what I felt was the most salient point, but I did read the rest of what you wrote. Your response here makes me think I didn’t understand what your wrote, but I did read it all.
My apologies if it comes across any form of aggressive - it's unintended. I'm attempting to leave multiple examples and when one is isolated from the other, it gives the impression that I didn't address the response that is being made. It was getting confusing.


The reason D&D uses six ability scores instead of two (physical and mental) is precisely because there are different perspectives from which physical and mental acumen can be defined. D&D doesn’t include a character’s overall intelligence (non-game term) in Intelligence (game term); Wisdom and Charisma play a role in the mental side of role-play as well.
Agreed, that's fair. Though, as far as I'm concerned there's still more depth than what seems to be perceived or allowed here.


Intelligence: One person can spell exceptionally, wins contests, but can't math for snot. Another person is the opposite; can barely spell legibly, but is a mathematics expert. (Neither of those would refer to Wisdom or Charisma.)

Charisma: One person is extremely deceptive and will make people question the color of the sky on a clear day, but can't make any friends. Another person can lure in anybody and charm them with ease, while being incapable of misleading or intimidating anybody. (Neither of those would refer to Intelligence or Wisdom.)

Do you see what I mean? This is on a more precise scale, but there are still different ways that these things can be measured while still falling under the same metric.

To tie it all in: I believe this is accounted for (mostly) through the skills that can be acquired based on class/background proficiency more-so than the ability score itself. If that's not a direct statement to varying ability score purposes, I don't know what is.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Having a not-so-smart Wizard, for example, shouldn't require your spell save DC to plummet. Having a smart Fighter shouldn't expect you to dump a necessary physical stat, and then be less combat effective, just to portray intellect.

I will say I 100% understood what you meant (I hope) and that you can play a character one way or another with the stats not lining up and it's not automatically bad.

CR shows examples of this all the time. Grog mechanically is not as stupid as he is played. Keyleth, played mechanically, should NEVER be as naive as she is or miss social queues. Nott/Veth is sweet and charming despite I think a 5 charisma? Laudna is offputting and awkward with an 18 charisma.

In my own games I have a lovely example. Mynx is a Leonin Artificer. She is a magical Savant. With story plot things and a magical item she actually sports a 24 Intelligence. And you ask her how she does it and it's some level of "Isn't it obvious?" Or "Oh, well you take a pinch of the purple stuff I found in that one cave and you mix it with a glass of water and then you toss in a smidge of that blue powder I keep in the corner..." And then you realize she's been to hundreds of caves, you have no idea what a "glass" is as a measurement and every corner in her house has a different blue powder.. It all makes sense to her and she either refuses or can't put it into coherent phrasing. This is a HIGHLY intelligent character who sounds and acts dumb all the time.

The party loves her, heck, another PC, a Hafling Wizard, has made it a point to help her and is specifically writing a Cypher to her ramblings.

Now. Should she have put a 9 or less in Intelligence and played a mechanically BAD artificer when that didn't fit the character? Or is someone going to say she's playing her intelligence wrong?

[animorte]

I will say I 100% understood what you meant (I hope) and that you can play a character one way or another with the stats not lining up and it's not automatically bad.
That's exactly what I've been trying to say, yes!

Thank you for the personal example. Good on the CR examples too, which reminds me of the huge difference between Scanlan Bard vs Dorian Bard (CR3), not to mention every other class/class comparison in how they are portrayed.

[greenstone]

Contentious idea ahead:

How about doing away with stat increases at character creation? Just have point-buy.

If you want a dextrous character, put more points in DEX. If you want to be a wizard, put more points in INT.

If you want to be a fighter, you don't get any special points for being a fighter - it is just up to you to use the point-buy to put good lots of points in the ability scores useful to a fighter.

[animorte]

Contentious idea ahead:

How about doing away with stat increases at character creation? Just have point-buy.
Personally, I would be absolutely fine with this. I don't believe point-buy is the favorite for the majority though, especially new players.

[Kane0]

One point from race (humans can pick anything, other races pick from 2-3)
One point from class (fixed stat, choice of two for MAD classes)
One point from background (two choices per background, but they're mutable anyways so it's essentially floating)

Can't pick the same stat three times.

Bam! Nature and nurture, thematics and mechanics.

[Rukelnikov]

One point from race (humans can pick anything, other races pick from 2-3)
One point from class (fixed stat, choice of two for MAD classes)
One point from background (two choices per background, but they're mutable anyways so it's essentially floating)

Can't pick the same stat three times.

Bam! Nature and nurture, thematics and mechanics.

PF2 does away with point buy or roll, and you get some stats from race, some from background, some from class, and a bunch untied to those.

I think it is 2 +2s for race bg and class each, and 4 +2s for free.

[Xervous]

My solution has been to apply the racial bonuses before point buy adjusts the base score, raise the starting caps accordingly, and continue to progress with point buy.

The biggest issue with the default is that you build one way and progress another. Point buy creates incentives to diversify stats, but progressing via ASI has no such incentives beyond the 20 cap.