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

[Lyxen]

What I'm trying to counteract is that narrative of @Lyxen's that if you're the sort of person that tries to always have a high primary attribute, you will also be unable to resist any and every form of optimization. (And that you probably are just doing what the guides tell you to do, anyway. I mean, really? WTF?)

Actually, my perspective is the inverse, which is that if you're the person that want to optimise, you will be unable to resist the lure of a higher primary attribute. And that this is one of the reason for not allowing Floating ASIs at our tables.

As for the guides, as I've said, they are well done, and so far all the examples posted are actually very close to the guides. I can't say whether they were created using the guides or not, or what the sources of inspiration where.

But they certainly gather tons of likes and comments wherever they are posted, so they must be popular, and used by many.

 

[Maxperson]

Let's examine that claim that it's not the top choice for paladin. I have looked at the four guides in DDB, and they ALL recommend the variant human as one of the best races for a paladin (three are Sky Blue, one blue)...

I don't even know what Sky Blue or the other one is. I certainly didn't pick it because of paladin. There was no powergaming going on with anything dealing with the paladin, and the only deliberate optimizing I did involved the stat bonuses at first level.

And then, curiously, it was only a few posts ago that someone explained that Bladesinger is the most OP class around, and it's certainly in the very top tier.

I picked it because I've been wanting to play one since 2e. I don't get to play much. I can guarantee you that it was not selected for it's power, nor was it used as a primary spellcaster. 95% of my combat rounds were just attack and cantrip. Why? Because it was fun. The only deliberate optimal selection was in playing a high elf for the int bonus at first level.

Honestly guys, who do you think you are speaking with ? We happen to know the game at least as well as you do, you know...

My point stands. I only made one small choice for optimization for each of those characters. Anything else was coincidence. And you completely ignored my blatantly poor(with powergaming in mind) feat choices for the Bladesinger. Why? Because it proves my position and weakens yours.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Actually, my perspective is the inverse, which is that if you're the person that want to optimise, you will be unable to resist the lure of a higher primary attribute. And that this is one of the reason for not allowing Floating ASIs at our tables.

But...but...but...haven't I (and others) explained many times that we are already unable to resist the lure of a higher primary attribute? Floating ASIs won't change that. All they would do is increase the variety of race:class combinations we actually choose.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Thus, if I weigh some additional DPR (based on white room theorycrafting) of playing a fully optimized fighter against this character concept I have for a kensai monk...with totally different mechanics and feel...the fun of the monk outweighs the dpr.

But when I'm choosing a race, I weigh the +1 to all my rolls (and damage) against...what? The chance to play a 'human in a funny hat'? Look, I love creating a persona and roleplaying my character, but the choice of race just doesn't affect that very much. I just don't see very compelling reasons to choose one race over another, because I can create a fun character to roleplay of any race.

Ok. I guess this makes sense. Personally I feel that thematically the choice of the species affect the feel of character far more than the class. When I think what sort of character I'd like to play, I tend to start with the species. But you're right that mechanically the species doesn't do much and the trade-offs are not that interesting. Totally fair point. I have always wished that the species would come with more crunch so I really cannot applaud getting rid of half the little crunch they had. I truly wish that they would improve the species as an important mechanical pillar of the character creation instead of giving up on the concept.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Personally I feel that thematically the choice of the species affect the feel of character far more than the class. When I think what sort of character I'd like to play, I tend to start with the species. But you're right that mechanically the species doesn't do much and the trade-offs are not that interesting. Totally fair point. I have always wished that the species would come with more crunch so I really cannot applaud getting rid of half the little crunch they had. I truly wish that they would improve the species as an important mechanical pillar of the character creation instead of giving up on the concept.

I would certainly play the same character differently if it were a different race, but there are an infinite number of fun characters to play of any race, so I don't feel like I'm giving up much by taking a different race.

I mean, even with my example of the Tiefling shadow monk it's really just because of the Nightcrawler reference. I have no idea what this character's personality would be...that would emerge over the course of the campaign as I figure it out.

And I agree that I wish there were a LOT more mechanical differentiation. (If there were a race that had no normal vision, only Blindsight, I would TOTALLY try that.)

 

[LadyElect]

I'd still like to know how you can say no to +3 to primary attribute offered by Tasha's custom lineage. Because that's 18 and +4 modifier (under array/point buy.)

Though not directed toward me, my own answer to this would be that I enjoy the flavorful traits that come with picking an existing race (trance, breath weapon, infernal legacy, etc.) more than the generic variable trait on custom lineage. Plus, this option providing a higher potential starting point doesn't satisfy my design desire for even starting potential across race-class combinations, it somewhat supplants it.

 

[Scott Christian]

Wow, well this exchange is certainly condescending! There have been innumerable and varied reasons given for why people want floating ASI (or, indeed, no ASI), including discussion of what alternative features/options might be given to the race selection to make it feel more distinctive. I've tried to quote from the history of the game, going back to OD&D, to show the different ways ability score modifications have been used--or not used--for those particular game designs. Other people have discussed what they enjoy about character creation in 5e. So I don't know why you would assume all of the reasons given and discussed are just "dissembling" for the sake of a "+1". And it suggests that any further discussion or argumentation would similarly be dismissed as a smokescreen for wanting a +1.

Alternative features - . I have been part of that conversation. Encouraged it and tried to add to it.

No ASI - . I stated I was okay with it. I think it makes the race's lose something. A feel. But if you are redesigning it might be best to start there.

History of the game - . Yet, to be fair, they have had race equated to attributes since 2nd edition. That is a long enough to consider it tradition.

"There have been innumerable and varied reasons given for why people want floating ASI" - No. Show me a reason that isn't about viability or fixing something they believe is broken. Please show me? It is what I have asked for over and over. Why do you want floating ASIs?

When someone, like me, comes along and says, it is all about that extra +1, I am told no. So what is it?

My thesis has been very clear from the beginning. Racial ASIs, for some players and DMs, helps the themes, motifs, archetypes, culture and worldbuilding of the game. They are a clear force in attaching the fluff to the mechanics. If someone wants to get rid of them, thus redesigning how the game was actually made, fine. Let the game evolve that way. But that should never stop a person from asking why? And how does it improve the game? And what does it take away from the game?

 

[Lyxen]

My point stands. I only made one small choice for optimization for each of those characters. Anything else was coincidence. And you completely ignored my blatantly poor(with powergaming in mind) feat choices for the Bladesinger. Why? Because it proves my position and weakens yours.

Alright, I'm sorry, but are we supposed to believe that you randomly choose two of the most powerful classes/archetypes in the whole game, or that it's pure happenstance that your preferences ran that way ? And that it was not optimal to get a +1 Int Feat when you rolled a 17 for Int on your bladesinger (also, I'm not sure how you did it, but with a starting int of 17, it should have been 19 after Keen Mind and Telepathic, so something is fishy here) ? And after claiming that human variant was not an optimal choice for a paladin ?

I don't know if you read the guides. And maybe some of your choices were not optimal at higher level, because of what happened during the game, who knows. But can you deny that both of your characters were fully optimised at level 1 ? And that no choices were made that were contrary to this ?

Honestly, once more, we know the game at least as well as you do.

 

[Lyxen]

But...but...but...haven't I (and others) explained many times that we are already unable to resist the lure of a higher primary attribute? Floating ASIs won't change that. All they would do is increase the variety of race:class combinations we actually choose.

It does not work that way unfortunately. Xanathar and then Tasha have proven that with the powergamer's mind set, everything that is not fully optimised is rubbish and derided.

So there is now way for the designers to increase the variety, changing the principles just moves the optimal to a (sometimes slightly) different position, with just power creep added in...

 

[Scribe]

I don't know that getting caught in the weeds of what is or isn't power gaming and applying 'purity test' questions to people's selections is the way to go.

I have a handful of archetypes I enjoy, and some combos I have gone back to the well on over and over.

Some are strong, some are stronger now, and some would be stronger still under Floating or Custom Lineage (WTF does that even mean...) rules.

None of that changes the fact these are characters or NPCs I have used for decades.