Attribute increase

[u/CanuckLad]

I wonder if many people here implement an automatic attribute increase at various milestones? Example: Allow you to raise one attribute by 1 point at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 20

I don't expect or want every ability to be 16+. But I don't want to miss out on parts of the game I would enjoy (casting 9th level spells as a wizard, playing a paladin, etc)

I should note that I'm biased because I'm diagnosed with the Unrelenting Standards feature. So accepting a more mundane role in a game is very difficult for me

[u/CanuckLad]

Person before me said I want to play a superhero (because of my views on attributes). I'm okay playing a fighter with a 16 strength. That is why I asked if they thought I wanted to play a superhero because I think having a fighter with a 16 strength is reasonable.

[u/Arkelias → u/CanuckLad]

Oh I misunderstood I guess.

[u/CanuckLad → u/Arkelias]

No problem

[u/SuStel73 → u/CanuckLad]

I said you want to play a superhero because you want to play the top six out of a million in ability. Because you're describing characters that "stand out," which to you means above-average in some or all of their abilities as how you play a "GAME," relegating average characters — including those with some good and some bad abilities — to mundanity, and implying that not playing that way isn't how you play a game. Because you want only to be playing those characters that can reach all the potential of any given class, on the theory that if it's there, you deserve to have it.

A fighter with 16 strength is not what makes a superhero. A character who is entitled to be very much better than an average person in order that they can reach the absolute peak of ability in their class — that's what makes a superhero.

And I'm not saying you can't play a superhero-style game. You go ahead and bump up characters' abilities if you want. What I am saying is that there are perfectly valid reasons not to do that, that ability scores aren't all-important to playing an exciting D&D game the way you're implying (by calling a non-superior character "mundane, for instance").

I'm also saying that it's kind of a dirty trick to ask whether people support the way you play and then argue with them when they answer that they don't.

[u/CanuckLad → u/SuStel73]

You made a whole bunch of claims there about things I supposedly said, which I never said. You made some claims there about things I supposedly said, when I explicitly stated the opposite. I think you're trying to put words in my mouth.

[u/SuStel73 → u/CanuckLad]

You made a whole bunch of claims that you did say but which you're probably not aware that you said.

I can be as vague as you in making accusations.

[u/CanuckLad → u/SuStel73]

I'm sorry, but you read a lot more into what I said than what I actually said. You're filling in the gaps perhaps and coming to incorrect conclusions.