D&D 5E Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)

[ReshiIRE]

Important to me, yes.



By my definition, reducing any negative or unhelpful attributes/rules, while maximizing synergy within your choices, is min/max.



Absolutely not. Optimization is a perfectly valid approach to the game, and became increasingly popular with the rise of modern MMO's. Not to say it didnt exist before, but its almost seen as an assumption by some now.



Since I dont see it as a negative, does that remove the contradiction?

It does, but it does strike me that people are talking past each other on that point, because as a newer player to the community I've mostly heard min-max being talked about as a negative in the TTRPG community, and in particular in D&D. Character optimisation is a better term perhaps but also seems ripe for confusion. It's a shame min-max is such a loaded term and everyone assignes a personal meaning to it.

Something more neutral would be good to have, to balance between 'making a character that functions well' and 'making a strong character' and 'making a ridiculously powerful character using the rules, which may or may not be considered poor show depending o nthe game' and 'abusing, bending or sneakily cheating the rules to create a god tier character to the deteriment of the game'.

 

[Faolyn]

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not? What that has to to do with how strong they actually are?


And if they're a warlock with agony or an evocation wizard they can add their charisma or intelligence to their attack damage. So what? These are different stats that represent different things.

Right, so those stats don't actually mean all that much in the first place, since there's so much that uses different stats to do the same thing.

I want the strength score to represent the creature's strength and I want the half-orcs to be able to be stronger than elves, thus I want the half-orcs to be able to get better strength score. This shouldn't be hard to follow even is you wouldn't think it is necessary.

So what, exactly, does it mean for a half-orc to be stronger than an elf? They're not going to do more damage than an elf because Strength and Dexterity give the same bonuses. They can lift more than a creature who has a lower Strength, sure, but a lower-Strength creature with Powerful Build can lift even more. Do you get upset if some people decide to play Strength 10 half orcs in the same party as a Strength 16 elf?

And why do you not realize that these floating ASIs affect PCs only, and PCs are already supposed to be unusual? Which means that NPC half-orcs are going to be as strong as you want them to be and the NPC elves are going to be as weak as you want them to be? This shouldn't be hard to follow either.

 

[Scribe]

And you clearly didn't care that other people didn't have these rules for literally decades.

You didnt have the ability to just say "Freely assign your attributes, you can also disregard any negative modifiers if you wish" in your games?

Remind me again when I showed up at your table, with Wizards in tow, forcing you to play it by the book, I dont seem to remember that event.

Just as I have not once said you cannot use Tasha's, Tasha's must not exist, and everyone must adopt a system of my choosing.

You go on and on telling me what I feel, what I want, what I have somehow prevented you from doing but I 100% can GUARANTEE, that nothing of the sort ever happened between you and I.

So maybe, you need to do some introspection on why you choose to continue to throw shade, when I am not materially impacting YOU in any way whatsoever, am not making post after post demanding that YOU justify what you want, or in any way telling YOU that its wrongbadfun.

Yet its perfectly acceptable for you to do so, over and over, across multiple threads.

Do whatever YOU like, at your table. GLHF.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is what I was responding to:

An argument that people imagine half-orc with same strength as an elf to be stronger. To me this sounded like saying that the stats are not the actual measure of who is stronger. Except now Faolyn says that they are... So the half-or is not stronger, but for some reason people still imagine they are? And this is somehow a good thing? Certainly the rules should try to align with how people imagine things to be and a disconnect between these two leads to dissonance and is undesirable?

It is pretty easy to understand.

Tropes are easier to remember than facts.

I was recently playing a game where my tielfling artificer, a firbolg druid, and a Minotaur paladin had to sneak around a camp. The minotaur paladin in heavy armor rolled like a 23 with disadvantage. I was shocked... until I remembered that when the guy had rolled his stats, he'd rolled like three 18's and his Dexterity bonus was actually almost as high as his strength and con and he'd taken stealth proficiency.

I also was in a game with a wizard once, guy's lowest stat was strength... of 14. He was stronger than a lot of other characters, even by dumping strength. But, if you'd asked any of us who the weakest character was,.. we'd probably say the wizard before he reminded us that that was wrong.

 

[Faolyn]

You didnt have the ability to just say "Freely assign your attributes, you can also disregard any negative modifiers if you wish" in your games?

And you won't have the ability to say "in my game, I'm not using floating ASIs"?

 

[Scribe]

It does, but it does strike me that people are talking past each other on that point, because as a newer player to the community I've mostly heard min-max being talked about as a negative in the TTRPG community, and in particular in D&D. Character optimisation is a better term perhaps but also seems ripe for confusion. It's a shame min-max is such a loaded term and everyone assignes a personal meaning to it.

Something more neutral would be good to have, to balance between 'making a character that functions well' and 'making a strong character' and 'making a ridiculously powerful character using the rules, which may or may not be considered poor show depending o nthe game' and 'abusing, bending or sneakily cheating the rules to create a god tier character to the deteriment of the game'.

I do not feel I've been talking past anyone. I have been pressed by multiple people, over multiple threads, to defend an opinion on what I personally enjoy.

I have answered most everyone that has personally called on me to do so, and have done so while making clear I am talking about MY preference, with no desire for anyone else to lose their Tasha's option.

That is seemingly not good enough, and I must continue to be subjected to some weird purity test, over enjoying a facet of the games design which has been present for decades.

Weird indeed.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What kind of character concepts have you built?

Were they strictly a class concept?

Did you think about how this character would grow up and participate in and relate to a race cultures community?

Honestly, this thread is good because it reminded me that I still want to make my feral barbarian wood elf. Might go looking for a play-by-post game and use that concept.

 

[Scribe]

And you won't have the ability to say "in my game, I'm not using floating ASIs"?

For the PC options where the options are defined and provided in the books I pay for?

Correct, I can do so.

 

[Maxperson]

The beauty of the floating ASIs is that they cover everyone's preferences.... unless your preference is that everything must be hard-coded for a population simulator.

Another way of saying that is, "Floating ASIs don't cover everyone's preferences."

 

[ReshiIRE]

I do not feel I've been talking past anyone. I have been pressed by multiple people, over multiple threads, to defend an opinion on what I personally enjoy.

I have answered most everyone that has personally called on me to do so, and have done so while making clear I am talking about MY preference, with no desire for anyone else to lose their Tasha's option.

That is seemingly not good enough, and I must continue to be subjected to some weird purity test, over enjoying a facet of the games design which has been present for decades.

Weird indeed.

To clarify, I wasn't referring to you when I meant people or this conversation. This was more of a tangent on the term and it's confusing aspects, not a criticism of how you present your points.