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

[LadyElect]

Well, if you don't see the benefit of having all the advantages of a Mountain Dwarf or a Githyanki basically for free on a glass canon caster, something that could not be done pre-Tasha without losing the very precious +1 on main abilities, I'm not sure how I can explain it better.

I see the benefit, but I've fallen mostly in line with those that have landed on the +1 not being significant enough to be break anything in a vacuum. Especially when considering the relative ease of pushing max if one so desires, either with point buy or a single equivalent or better rolled stat, and the fact the combinations exist by default otherwise. That's also assuming your setting includes them, of course—mine is Githless.

Most people agree that it is significant power creep, not all over the board but for specific applications that powergamers are quick to exploit.

And this is what I was speaking to before when I suggested it could flatten the overall power gap to open the option and address these specifics (either with brew or addressing the larger table/player concern) while allowing the rest to level out, but I understand you. Conversely, it's this part that is most intriguing to me and why I followed that line:

Honestly, I have not done a complete comparison for all races across all classes, I'm not really interested in that.

 

[Lyxen]

If so, then it is equally true to say that unoptimized roleplaying is "about one's own fun with no consideration to the fun of other players".

No, it's not. Playing casually is just that, whereas powergaming is putting special effort into making a selfish difference in the game.

Note that I have the same difficulty with heavy roleplayers being wangrods and creating characters that will make it difficult for the party because of the role or personality chosen. However, in my long experience, these are not only much more seldom encountered, but they are also easier to shut off, whereas when you try to do this with a powergamer, you usually get a mix of ruleslawyering and entitlement that can take hours...

I'm joking here, but all the above is unfortunately very true, from probably thousands of games.

But I disagree with both statements. Just because other people at the table don't share your playstyle, find it annoying, doesn't mean it's a selfish playstyle. It just means you're at the table with the wrong people.

You are partially right, it comes with not playing with like-minded people. But partially only, again I've had much more trouble with powergamers than with casuals, especially because the latter are usually humble about their overall attitude.

Personally, I find optimized play / powergaming more fun when doing so in conjunction with other people who share the same preference. Teamwork > Solo.

And all the better for you if you can consistently play with only like-minded players. However, it's not always possible when playing with friends, even old-time ones who know each other by heart.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mean, all these anti-powergaming arguments could be mirrored the other way. I could take the most extreme, disruptive form of "roleplaying" and insist that all non-optimizers are really just that annoying player waiting to happen. You know, the one who refuses to engage in combat because they are a pacifist, and refuses to heal you because you insulted their god, and refuses to accept the quest because reasons, but somehow still manages to get you into a fight with the entire town guard. And then somehow there's a rationalization for why starting PvP doesn't conflict with pacificism.

Those stinking roleplayers...it's a slippery slope, is what it is.

The first sign of this happening is when somebody refuses to optimize. There's no shades of grey here. Roleplayers are destroying the game.

 

[Lyxen]

I see the benefit, but I've fallen mostly in line with those that have landed on the +1 not being significant enough to be break anything in a vacuum.

The thing is that one of the conclusion that has been reached by many here is that the +1 is absolutely core and that almost no-one would consider playing without it, which is why races who did not provide it were completely ignored except in very special cases.

Especially when considering the relative ease of pushing max if one so desires, either with point buy or a single equivalent or better rolled stat, and the fact the combinations exist by default otherwise. That's also assuming your setting includes them, of course—mine is Githless.

Giths and Tortles might be a bit more seldom encountered, but Mountain Dwarves are common enough not to raise eyebrows in and of themselves in many campaign settings.

And this is what I was speaking to before when I suggested it could flatten the overall power gap to open the option and address these specifics (either with brew or addressing the larger table/player concern) while allowing the rest to level out, but I understand you.

Honestly, negative power gap due to some people picking up races who do not provide the +1 (e.g. my halfling Warlock and Sorceress, or my friends Half-orc Bard) are not a concern, because no-one is going to pick on them for lack of efficiency. In my experience, it requires a very strong type of powergamer to do this, and we don't have them at our tables (the last one that we had created two big fights at tables, and despite being a friend to some of us, we stopped inviting him).

 

[Bill Zebub]

People who would play a Tortle caster because of, and only because of, new synergies allowed by Tasha's were going to pick something hyper-optimized anyway. It's not like that option is going to turn people into powergamers.

I mean, isn't simply having a greater variety of powergamer builds a desirable outcome? Aren't you sick of seeing Vengeance Paladins with GWM and Polearm Mastery, SorLocks, etc.?

 

[Lyxen]

I mean, all these anti-powergaming arguments could be mirrored the other way. I could take the most extreme, disruptive form of "roleplaying" and insist that all non-optimizers are really just that annoying player waiting to happen. You know, the one who refuses to engage in combat because they are a pacifist, and refuses to heal you because you insulted their god, and refuses to accept the quest because reasons, but somehow still manages to get you into a fight with the entire town guard. And then somehow there's a rationalization for why starting PvP doesn't conflict with pacificism.

Those stinking roleplayers...it's a slippery slope, is what it is.

The first sign of this happening is when somebody refuses to optimize. There's no shades of grey here. Roleplayers are destroying the game.

Please use smileys when you are joking, as I hope that you are.

More seriously, as I've said, I've encountered a few of these, but so very few in my roleplaying "career" that it was easy to take care of. Moreover, to do this, you do not need to tinker with the rules, just have a serious discussion at character creation or if the player pops up something unexpected.

And in the end, I know that powergamers love being reminded that the devs have never said that "the game" is a optimiser's game, whether combat or not. They specifically wrote exactly the contrary:

• The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery.
• To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game.

So here you go, whereas rules and rolling dice are not the best thing in the game, it is a roleplaying game first and foremost, so it cannot, by definition, destroy the game like powergaming can p, see there is a smiley there).

 

[Lyxen]

People who would play a Tortle caster because of, and only because of, new synergies allowed by Tasha's were going to pick something hyper-optimized anyway. It's not like that option is going to turn people into powergamers.

No, of course, they are powergamers before making that choice, which is why they are making it. But by refusing to allow Floating ASIs, you will ensure that the power gap with casual characters is more limited than by allowing it.

I mean, isn't simply having a greater variety of powergamer builds a desirable outcome? Aren't you sick of seeing Vengeance Paladins with GWM and Polearm Mastery, SorLocks, etc.?

We don't have them at our tables, so no, I'm not tired. My paladin uses spear and shield and has the Oath of the Dragonlords, and the worst that we've had was a Sorcadin and, curiously, it was the character from that bad powergamer that we ended up not inviting again because he created huge fights when trying to force other players to fight optimally (and therefore obey him)1. What a coincidence !

 

[Scribe]

Playing casually is just that, whereas powergaming is putting special effort into making a selfish difference in the game.

Disagree. If you are the only casual, you are personally holding everything else back.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Please use smileys when you are joking, as I hope that you are.

No, I wasn't. I mean, it was satire, but I'm 100% serious about the point: the way you treat powergamers/optimizers as a black and white thing, with all of them being as bad as the worst ones, is just as ridiculous as the claims I made in that post.

So here you go, whereas rules and rolling dice are not the best thing in the game, it is a roleplaying game first and foremost, so it cannot, by definition, destroy the game like powergaming can p, see there is a smiley there).

I also find this oft-repeated argument entirely specious. These games were called "roleplaying games" back before it involved much if any play-acting of personalities. It simply meant you were playing the role of a single character (as opposed to a cast of characters, as in military strategy games) and because the various characters have varying powers (unlike tokens in a board game) the way one plays this role will likely vary from the other participants.

The type of roleplaying you are describing was grafted onto the game over time.

 

[Bill Zebub]

We don't have them at our tables, so no, I'm not tired.

Thus you probably won't see tortle casters at your table either....unless somebody genuinely wants to play one for roleplaying reasons.

So what's the problem? What are you trying to solve/prevent?

Are you worried other DMs will suffer this scourge, and you are trying to protect them?