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

[Lyxen]

I answered that. It's mild optimization which is not even close to rising to the level of power gaming.

So you agree that it's exactly the same thing, just to a lesser degree.

Every player I’ve ever met makes at least some choices based on math, not story. (You may be the rare or unique exception who NEVER does this; I have no idea.)

I did it a quite a lot in the past, for sure, but stopped doing it because it is at best pointless (the DM adjusts the challenges to the power of the group anyway) and at worst dangerous because of the unhealthy competition that it generates, as well as declaring a lot of interesting options of the game useless just for reasons of power. At our tables, we don't make stupid choices just because we could, but certainly not having the highest score that any race could have is not a reason not to make different choices.

We make choices because they render the game interesting in general, give more options or look cool, not for max damage or DPR.

And as far as I can tell, most people define optimization as what they themselves do, and powergaming is when somebody else does more of it.

So we agree that it's the same thing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Never wrote about anger, but envy and jealousy for sure. They just want the same bonuses as others who made more technically optimal choices.

Oops not sure why I wrote anger instead of envy.

In any event, you seem to be drawing the same curious inference as @Scott Christian, and assuming that the common decision to maximize a primary attribute is because "other people have it".

Speaking only for myself (which is all I really can do, right?) I'll say that:
- If everybody else at the table had 14's and 15's in their primary attributes, I'd still want a 16 or 17.
- And if it were possible to start with an 18, I'd want that, too, even if everybody else had 16's and 17's.
- If I were playing in a duet game with just me and a DM, I'd still want my primary attribute as high as possible.

By which I'm trying to say that it's really not about what other people have: it's that I recognize how useful primary attributes are, and in general I'll want it as high as possible, and the way the game is currently designed there aren't other things to trade it for that I find as compelling (except in some cases I'll choose a feat instead of another +1).

The claim that it's just because other people have it sounds to me like an attempt to de-legitimize the desire. "It's not possible you want a high primary attribute for a sensible, game-mechanics reason; it has to be petty jealousy."

I mean, just think about how easy it would be to turn the tables and do the same thing with the arguments in favor of racial ASIs.

Believe me, if it was up to me I certainly would not entangle it, but some people really want it, so it makes the issue even more difficult to discuss without prejudice.

I'm not understanding this. What's the antecedent of "it" in "people really want it"?

 

[Bill Zebub]

So we agree that it's the same thing.

Oh, yeah, for sure. You're having that argument about definitions with somebody else. I mean, not that they are the same things for everybody, but I don't understand the purpose of arguing about what two subjective terms mean.

 

[Lyxen]

I'm confused as to your argument. Do you think the base game should include racial ASI or floating ASI? For either case, why?

At our tables, we only use racial ASIs because it's a fantasy game and we know that not all fantasy races are and should be equal, for one, and because it's part of the fantasy tropes to have clever gnomes and strong half-orcs (or whatever attributes we use for whatever races). And even the half-orc wizard can one day be more clever than most elves and show them up if it's what his story is about, so how is that a problem ? And in any case, PCs and NPCs don't have scores tattooed on their foreheads.

If people want to do differently at their tables, perfect, the option is there, and everyone is entitled to whatever they want in their game, I'm not judging.

 

[Bill Zebub]

At our tables, we only use racial ASIs because it's a fantasy game and we know that not all fantasy races are and should be equal, for one, and because it's part of the fantasy tropes to have clever gnomes and strong half-orcs (or whatever attributes we use for whatever races). And even the half-orc wizard can one day be more clever than most elves and show them up if it's what his story is about, so how is that a problem ? And in any case, PCs and NPCs don't have scores tattooed on their foreheads.

If people want to do differently at their tables, perfect, the option is there, and everyone is entitled to whatever they want in their game, I'm not judging.

So if the game officially switched to floating ASIs, I assume people at your table would still put those ASIs into the traditional attributes, even though the rules aren't forcing them to do this, and thus nothing would change for you.

Are there any other concerns you have about WotC drifting away from racial ASIs and toward floating ASIs?

 

[Maxperson]

So you agree that it's exactly the same thing, just to a lesser degree.

Only if you agree that a chimp is exact same thing as human since both share the same family tree. And if you agree that water is the exact same thing as hydrochloric acid since they both dissolve things.

See my post with an example of power gaming. Simple optimization doesn't even begin to touch on what power gaming is.

 

[Lyxen]

By which I'm trying to say that it's really not about what other people have: it's that I recognize how useful primary attributes are, and in general I'll want it as high as possible, and the way the game is currently designed there aren't other things to trade it for that I find as compelling (except in some cases I'll choose a feat instead of another +1).

So it's just a question of technical usefullness and therefore power => Power gaming.

I'm not understanding this. What's the antecedent of "it" in "people really want it"?

Entangle racials ASIs with other issues like orcs and drows.

 

[Maxperson]

So it's just a question of technical usefullness and therefore power => Power gaming.

Ignoring my counter arguments and just repeating that it's power gaming isn't going to make simple optimization into power gaming, no matter how many times you want to repeat it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So it's just a question of technical usefullness and therefore power => Power gaming.

Yeah, sure. I acknowledge that. I like my characters to be effective. A level 1 fighter with 16 strength does around 20-25% more damage, on average, than a fighter with 15 strength. Combined with other optimization (power-gamey) choices, these things all add up. Plus I just get satisfaction from knowing that my character is optimized, regardless if the difference is apparent at the table.

Entangle racials ASIs with other issues like orcs and drows.

Well I guess I'm still not understanding. I think the issue with orcs and drow is real, complex, and subtle, and people who say "orcs aren't black people" are REALLY not understanding the issue.

But, at least for me, the racial ASI issue is 100% about a totally unnecessary "finger on the scale" that pushes people toward traditional archetypes. It has nothing to do with the orc and drow thing. But from your earlier post it sounded like maybe it is, for you.

 

[LadyElect]

We make choices because they render the game interesting in general, give more options or look cool, not for max damage or DPR.

This has largely been the argument of people pro-floating ASIs for a few pages now as well.

Your takes here seem to be targeting hypothetical stances rather than the ones that have been given here (mostly cordially I think).