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

[Bill Zebub]

"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?

The thing is, while the +1 seems to win out over playing various races, it doesn't mean people are obsessed with the +1 to the exclusion of everything else. It just means that the only available alternative, playing other races, is somehow less desirable. (You could equivalently say, "It's all about hating non-standard races.")

It seems to me that you have repeatedly tried to not just acknowledge the desire of the +1, but to explain why other people desire it. To the point of telling me that my explanations mean something other than what I am saying.

My thesis has been very clear from the beginning. Racial ASIs, for some layers 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?

Because D&D Beyond data shows that people tend to choose race:class synergy, thus we would see more variety and creativity if there were less synergy. And I would be one of those people choosing more variety and creativity.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I think when players build their characters, they lean towards optimizing. Self-restricting for the sake of roleplaying or story is not common. All that said, I think people can optimize without putting too much thought into it. Especially people that know the game well. Thus, they might not even think they are optimizing when they are.
In the end, I don't think it matters at the table level. It does matter when debating about game theory, because the cause and effect portion of optimizing has a distinct impact on the game's feel, creativity, relatability, and playability.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

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.

I tend to trust people when they say thing about what they do. I'll point out that his choice of race, vuman, would have been dark blue in most of the class: paladin, but also artificer, barbarian, bard... up to wizard. So, it's not a combination of Paladin and vuman that is "powergamey" it's the sheer choice of playing a human and eschewing the bizarre +1 to all stat that is probably the blandest and less interesting thing imaginable to make a race distinctinctive.

I've only played vumans because, in that order (a) it's easier for me to roleplay a human without trying to apply an alien mindset to the problem at hand, except the one time I played a cat-like feral paladin (member of a cat-like feral family, and yes, we attacked the ennemy that moved the most in a fight and purposefully ran after shiny, moving objects) (b) because I feel getting a feat let me mechanically reinforce the backstory... so I guess most of my character wouldn't pass the "powergaming litmus test".

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Please defend that statement. "People tend to choose synergy" proves that everything else is "rubbish and derided"? That's pretty extreme and absolute.

 

[Maxperson]

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 ?

I don't care what you believe. Your belief is not relevant to the truth of the situation. One of my players likes looking up stats and combos. I don't. I choose concept and then just create it, regardless of power level.

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 ?

You are correct. It was 19. The game ended shortly after we reached 12th level and a 19 is functionally an 18, so I misremembered. And the human variant was not an optimal choice. It was a roleplaying choice. Anything else was coincidental. You don't get to make my RP choices into powergaming choices. Intent matters. And no, I didn't pick keen mind to get +1 int. I picked it because I don't take notes and have ADD and the corresponding memory issues, so I wanted to be able to get reminders about what my character had heard.

I don't know if you read the guides.

Not one. I don't care about the guides and eking out plusses and extra .5 points of damage per round.

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 ?

Yes. I had the ability to swap stats and could have put the 18 I rolled into intelligence, starting with a 19 int at first level and hitting 20 at 4th with my first feat, while also starting with an 18 in dex. It absolutely could have been optimized better at first level. I left it at dex, because elves are dexterous. I also could have picked a much better feat for wizards at 4th level, but I didn't. I picked keen mind.

No matter how you slice it, I was not building for power. I made that character for roleplay with the only conscious choice in optimizing being the +1 int for high elf.

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

When it comes to powergaming, much better. None of that changes the fact that I did not optimize those PCs other than the racial bonuses.

 

[Scott Christian]

The thing is, while the +1 seems to win out over playing various races, it doesn't mean people are obsessed with the +1 to the exclusion of everything else. It just means that the alternative, playing other races, is somehow less desirable. (You could equivalently say, "It's all about hating non-standard races.")

It seems to me that you have repeatedly tried to not just acknowledge the desire of the +1, but to explain why other people desire it. To the point of telling me that my explanations mean something other than what I am saying.

So I ask for the "innumerable reasons" that you say were stated, and you don't list a single one. And the +1 is needed by many. I don't know how else to say it. Maybe the reason I keep using need is because I don't have a list of other reasons why they want floating ASIs.

Because D&D Beyond data shows that people tend to choose race:class synergy, thus we would see more variety and creativity if there were less synergy. And I would be one of those people choosing more variety and creativity.

Will you see more creativity? How can you measure this? As far as variety, has there been a sudden sea change of race/class combinations since Tasha's variant rule? Is there data on this? (I do not mean any of this condescendingly, I am truly curious.)

And we still need to ask what is lost with floating ASIs?

But I thank you for your clear response. I think it is a good reason, and maybe one you have experience with at your table. Which, in the end, is what it is all about - letting each table have their fun. (And again, not condescendingly) Have you had experience with the variant rule and seen its effects at the table? If so, would you mind sharing?

 

[abirdcall]

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)...



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.

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...

There are some people who think they are far above others when it comes to 'optimization' because they have made a hobby out of it.

Ask them what kind of trophies or money they have won in competitive games though and you get crickets.

It is the height of hubris when they think they are one of a few geniuses of gaming because they know a +3 is higher than a +2.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So I ask for the "innumerable reasons" that you say were stated, and you don't list a single one. And the +1 is needed by many. I don't know how else to say it. Maybe the reason I keep using need is because I don't have a list of other reasons why they want floating ASIs.

Will you see more creativity? How can you measure this? As far as variety, has there been a sudden sea change of race/class combinations since Tasha's variant rule? Is there data on this? (I do not mean any of this condescendingly, I am truly curious.)

And we still need to ask what is lost with floating ASIs?

But I thank you for your clear response. I think it is a good reason, and maybe one you have experience with at your table. Which, in the end, is what it is all about - letting each table have their fun. (And again, not condescendingly) Have you had experience with the variant rule and seen its effects at the table? If so, would you mind sharing?

Oh, I see. Yes, the reason for wanting floating ASIs is all about the +1. In the sense of “stop making me choose between +1 and race.”

I thought the claim was more sweeping, that for people who want 16s the game of D&D “is all about maximizing your primary attribute.” As in, a single minded focus on this one thing.

 

[LadyElect]

And the +1 is needed by many. I don't know how else to say it. Maybe the reason I keep using need is because I don't have a list of other reasons why they want floating ASIs.

I slightly touched on this in passing before, but with this in mind:

In the sense of “stop making me choose between +1 and race.”

It doesn't necessarily equate to "needing" the bonus if the design philosophy also accepts eliminating it. For any of those like myself that might have been presenting from a balancing redesign perspective, it doesn't really fit as worded. I haven't taken umbrage with it since I believe I understand the gist, but perhaps it's worth clarifying.

And that goes along with my previous response about my personal disinterest with custom lineage as an option as well, since the tradeoff of yet another possible +1 is offset by the loss of more specific and engaging 5e flavor built into the racial options. It's just a different threshold for me in the vein of what some others seem to think the ASIs provide to world-building, I suppose.

 

[Malmuria]

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?

The main argument for floating ASI is largely the same one in favor of racial ASI. IF* it is the case that racial ASI "helps the themes, motifs, archetypes, culture and worldbuilding of the game" by "attaching the fluff to the mechanics" --if that's truly the case, then if you want a world with different or merely expanded themes, motifs, archetypes, culture, and worldbuilding, the existing racial ASI will either be a limitation or irrelevant. So we can ask whether the implicit setting of the core books should hew to those classic archetypes. If the answer is yes, proceed with racial ASI, if the answer is no, then you need a more versatile mechanic.

[*if racial ASI serves that purpose. The other argument, one more against racial ASI than in favor of floating ASI, is that racial ASI doesn't actually do a good job of reinforcing those classic themes and archetypes. If you can say to the powergamer, "the +1 in your stat doesn't really matter that much for how your character feels at the table, it's just 5%," then that same argument can be used to say, "the +1 doesn't really help distinguish races from one other, it's just 5%." Further, the fact that ASI is not unique to race but also comes from class progression means weakens its distinctiveness. Here's where we can turn to other games and suggest racial feats and abilities as a better mechanic than racial ASI for the purpose of developing themes, motifs, archetypes, and cultures. Alternatively, we can turn to OD&D, where there were no ability score modifications but races were restricted to certain classes, or basic, where race was class, and see if the mechanics there do a better job than 5e.]

To give you a sense of my stakes in this discussion, if I wanted a game that supported the classic themes, motifs, archetypes, culture and worldbuilding of dnd, I would not choose 5e. There's too much in the game that doesn't work well toward that purpose. Instead, I would choose a version of basic dnd (probably Old School Essentials). But I can take at face value that for other people the default mechanics of 5e do a good enough job of providing the necessary archetypes via racial ASI. Again, if that is truly the case, then for those wanting a slightly expanded array of archetypes need to add versatility with the mechanics.