Initial ABI from class not race

[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.

Spoiler: Mind if I try to simplify what I'm referring to?

Show

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.