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

[Lyxen]

Agreed. I have not had a chance to play...

And I have seen this so many times already on so many forums, people wanting to convince me that they had a character not designed to powergame...

 

[Zubatcarteira]

In this case, there is no difference between a need and want. If they want it because their enjoyment depends on it, then it could also be described as a need. Your statement implies their enjoyment of the game is at stake if they don't have the ASI.

Not really, not everything is do or die, you can prefer something without all your enjoyment hinging on it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And for me it leaves out the biggest variable of them all - the DM's play structure. I mean, a paladin is incredibly strong if you only have one combat per long rest. A rogue is godlike if there are more than three encounters before a long rest. The swing between these two playstyles is larger than anything a +1 can give.

Absolutely agree.

What's interesting is that some of us conclude "Therefore stop worrying about getting that +1 on your character and play what you want! Racial ASIs are fine."

And others of us conclude "Therefore stop worrying about me getting that +1 on my character so that I can play what I want! Floating ASIs please."

Ironic, huh?

 

[Bill Zebub]

In this case, there is no difference between a need and want. If they want it because their enjoyment depends on it, then it could also be described as a need. Your statement implies their enjoyment of the game is at stake if they don't have the ASI.

Could I ask you to consider this in the context that I described, that I choose the 16+ in my primary attribute primarily because the alternative (a human in a funny hat, with darkvision) isn't as desireable as +1 on my rolls?

If I could choose, say, a cloak of invisibility I would choose that over the +1.

The +1 is relatively desirable compared to what you get by giving it up, but that doesn't make it an absolute want/need.

 

[Scott Christian]

Not really, not everything is do or die, you can prefer something without all your enjoyment hinging on it.

Notice I did not say all their enjoyment. I was very careful to not say that. In fact, I used a negative to make sure it stood out.

The difference between need and want in your statement is nil. The want is a need if their enjoyment is lessened by the fact they don't get floating ASIs. Therefore, in order to enjoy the game they want to play, they need the floating ASI.

Can they sit down and enjoy the game? Sure. I can sit down and enjoy Candyland with a little kid. Is it the game they wanted? Does the game lose enjoyment value if they don't get their floating ASI? According to your statement - yes.

 

[Scott Christian]

Absolutely agree.

What's interesting is that some of us conclude "Therefore stop worrying about getting that +1 on your character and play what you want! Racial ASIs are fine."

And others of us conclude "Therefore stop worrying about me getting that +1 on my character so that I can play what I want! Floating ASIs please."

Ironic, huh?

Yeah, it is odd. Logic jumps on both sides. But like so many things in D&D, if you analyze it too much, the entire system is built from a house of cards. The smallest investigation can knock it over.

 

[LadyElect]

Interesting. This is exactly how I have built my optimized or min/maxed characters.

When I choose the against type characters, I often think of the personality and background first. Then that leads to the against type. It's never a forethought like it is for my optimized character.

I wonder if others think the same way?

I almost always have a few ideas bouncing around but tend to save settling on one until the rest of my playgroup offers up their own ideas so as to not step on any toes (or compliment them by locking toes together!).

Those ideas are sometimes inspired by media properties I've crossed recently and think are fun, or just some aesthetic I find interesting ("Hey, that Firbolg Rogue blurb is fun. Let's try that on!").

 

[Scott Christian]

Could I ask you to consider this in the context that I described, that I choose the 16+ in my primary attribute primarily because the alternative (a human in a funny hat, with darkvision) isn't as desireable as +1 on my rolls?

If I could choose, say, a cloak of invisibility I would choose that over the +1.

The +1 is relatively desirable compared to what you get by giving it up, but that doesn't make it an absolute want/need.

Oh absolutely. I completely get you, and agree.

But in the beginning, we are talking masses. Groups, not individuals. And, in my opinion, experience and the data suggest that the +1 is the overriding influencer on character creation. That is really what I am saying when I say need.

Then of course, I take it further and discuss the positives of being able to see beyond that need.

But your point is taken.

 

[Maxperson]

Agreed. I have not had a chance to play my Halfling (lightfoot) Folk Hero Warlock yet. He rescued a fox from a silverthorn bush. The fox turned out to be a Fey Lord that had gotten himself trapped. As thanks he offered my character a pact.

But as I used floating ASI and have a+2 to Chr, I guess I am a powergamer.

Right. And if I make a aarakockra barbarian and put the floating +2 into strength, that automatically makes the aarakockra racials optimal for the barbarian class. After all, @Lyxen has declared that you can't optimize with the floating stat bonus and nothing else, so it must be true.

 

[Wolfram stout]

And I have seen this so many times already on so many forums, people wanting to convince me that they had a character not designed to powergame...

Well, sorry that I am my groups forever DM and only get to play every few years. That is why I didn't respond to your post with my character idea.