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

[Lyxen]

So people aska bout build advice, and they get build advice, but it is the wrong kind of advice so you want to protest Floating ASIs? I'll let you in on a secret, floating ASIs or not, you won't change the fact that when people ask for advice, they get it. And sure, it would be great to see people giving more varied advice, but again, that has nothing to do with floating ASIs. Take them or leave them, and you will not change that. With them though, you might get more varied advice.

And at our tables we chose to leave them just like we do with other options, and not ask for advice because we are not building technical characters that need a technical crutch to seem attractive to play.

Maybe the other person will agree with you, maybe not, but your issues have nothing to do with Floating ASIs.

They have everything to do, it's a power option, demonstrated as such.

You are looking at this as Binary. You've told people that want FLoating ASIs that it is optional, which is clearly a sign that you think they shouldn't do it. And you also have made the claim that "reasonable people" don't want it either.

I don't think I ever did something of the kind. I'm saying that when you don't want a powergame, it's reasonable to leave power options on the side, nothing more.

But, I'm a reasonable person. I'm not some monstrous player who will mock you for your build, or scream down a new player for doing something that isn't mechanically optimal. And I like Floating ASIs. They open options for me that weren't open before.

This is really funny because it demonstrates that it only opens options that were not considered before because they were not powerful enough for your taste. Because the Floating ASIs did not create any new option in terms of race/class. They only make options that were here all along more palatable because now you have more power with them!

However, since you refuse to imagine that anyone who disagress with you is anything except dishonest and toxic to the game, you are fighting back against a tool that can help you.

Please stop it with the strawmaning. We don't need these options, we don't need crutches to have race/class combination seem attractive. You do, hence it's powergaming. I don't ascribe something evil to this, so why are you doing it to yourself ?

We've said the benefits. It allows character concepts that don't fee, hampered by being behind the curve. Instead of playing a Tiefling warlock who gets +3 attack, damage, spell DC and every social skill, I can play an and get those same starting values, and I can play the story of them being in a marriage arranged by their Fey Godmother to marry into a Faerie Noblehouse.

And here you go, just to justify a +1 Technical power, you do exactly what I say, you invent a TECHNICAL build and you try to justify it with a story that anyone can invent in 3 seconds. The only person that you are fooling here is yourself, you know, because I chose to play a halfling warlock, an extremely satisfying character, by the way, but without these bonuses years ago.

So nothin hampers you except the POWER that you need from th Floating ASIs. In short, only one word for it, powergaming.

Sure, you'll tell me I could play those characters anyways, if I just gave up on that +3 then I could do anything and not worry about it. But, no, I can't.

Why ? Because you like the power of the +1. Powergaming, this has NOTHING to do with story or roleplaying.

If I could I would have done that the last thousand times someone talked down to me about how I'm just wrong. But, surprisingly, my own expeirences at my own games, struggling to succeed with characters who have that +3 tell me that I'd probably have a worse time of it with only a +2.

And why are you struggling ? The difficulty is not set beforehand by an unforgiving DM who decides to kill characters if they lack a +1, or at least I hope your DM is not like that. Ours certainly are not. Moreover, considering that this +1 has really had a statistical effect over a few games is mathematically fallacious. Pure luck has a much greater influence over the few rolls that you are doing in a given session anyway, and you are much more likely to die from bad luck than from a missing +1...

And I'm sure you'll tell me that challenge is an illusion, and that my DM would certainly start pulling their punches if I made weaker characters. But no, first of all, they wouldn't.

And you don't think that it's a problem ?

And second of all, they only might if everyone else was making an non-archetypical character. But if they are all making archetypical characters, then I'm the one left playing the oddball and struggling.

And here you see one of the nasty sides of powergaming (although not the nastiest). Why are you in this competition about playing archetypal characters ? Powergaming, and ONLY powergaming. It has nothing to do with how the game is described by the devs.

For no other reason than because some people don't like it when you play against type and are effective at it (because real players succeed anyways or some nonsense)

And isn't that exactly what I'm telling you is one of the nasty effects of powergaming ? Looking down at people who do not optimise their character ? Saying that only powergamers are "real players"?

and others like you are arguing that if I want to be on even footing I must be a powergamer who derides others and wants to force them to make the choices I like instead of the ones that they like, so I should definetly not be allowed to make the choice I like and be forced to make the choice you like.

And above I though you were making the choices because of powergaming peer pressure ? But no, it's because you like it as well. Power gamer.

And this is binary thinking. Let me ask you this. You mentioned Treantmonk. Personally, I think the guy is way off base, but you seem to think he's pretty smart. And he is certainly a powergamer.

I don't doubt that, but I never said he was great, I said that he had the same thinking as me about what wizards are about.

Whose powergaming guide did he read? Whose build is he following? Because, you keep saying that all powergamers just parrot the words of the guides, that anyone who just builds a character without referencing a guide is not a powergamer, so he must be reading someone's guide and using that to parrot his characters, right?

Once day, you will read my posts and stop strawmaning, and it will help immensely in the discussions. I never said anything like the above, i'm pointing to guides as obvious sources of powergaming, but I'm not guilty of the sophisms that you profess. Obviously, you can be a powergamer without consulting the guides, I'm just pointing out that I've seen so many people on the forums referencing them as their source of inspiration that they certainly have some effect, at least on the community frequenting the forums...

 

[Lyxen]

It would seem that PHB options + floating ASI is a much lower power level than keeping racial ASI but allowing all of the races and subclasses from the various supplements, especially Tasha's. So if we are talking, say, about a 5.5e PHB, floating ASI would not be the thing that introduces power creep.

As always (and this is what killed 3e by the way) it's never ONE option that kills the game because at least that option is usually playtested on its own. It's always the combination of options that creates stupid combos, and usually feats plus multiclassing is the real culprit. But adding exotic races (but not only, mountain dwarf is not that exotic) again adds to the mix and finally Floating ASIs on top of all these races is what creates difficulty.

Don't think that because I don't want to use Floating ASIs in my game that I will use all the other silly options. I won't.

Anyway, my players don't read the rulebooks let along online guides, forget most of their abilities, and end up defaulting to doing the same 2 or 3 things in combat over and over again. If anything fights that should be of a moderate difficulty end up being very difficult because no one knows what they're doing. . So, as with all things, ymmv.

And that's a fine way to play as well as long as they are having fun...

 

[Lyxen]

There is also no game if the players leave, just someone sitting there rattling dice. Even if you believe you have the power to force players to act like you want, there is no value in doing so.

Oh yes there is. A lot. It's not worth doing it if you don't think that it will not benefit the players, but the players need to respect the work that you are doing so that they can enjoy the game. And that respect starts with listening to what the DM has prepared, with an open mind, and complying with his requests in terms of world building, ambiance and power level.

If you disagree, you can always leave, but I've DMed for more than 40 years using these methods and no one has ever walked out of my games. Ever.

And so I will tell players every time, it is your right to use the Standard Array. If you want to use it and the DM refuses, then that should be that. Because how you generate your stats shouldn't matter.

They do. Not for powergaming reasons (although it's often the case in other groups), but for our groups, it's about larger than life heroes, so having heroic stats, both high and low, help in characterising extraordinary PCs (yes, they are sometimes over the top, and fairly caricatural, but that's the way Heroic Fantasy and in particular High Fantasy works, and we like it that way).

The standard array is very very bland, to be honest, and no-one at our tables ever use it.

If me using a longsword as a Paladin, or using the Standard array instead of rolling ruins your game because you weren't able to control every aspect of the character's design, then I'm not sorry.

But Maxperson was very clear. He doesn't allow the standard array because he finds it boring. I don't see how him finding my character boring matters in the slightest. I don't care if my stat generation method is boring to you, I'm not breaking the game, and if you are obsessing over the fact that used a standard array instead of looking at my actual character, then that is a you problem.

To be fair, while we think that the standard array is bland, and we do not use it, we would certainly not forbid it either.

And you are right to point out that a character can have the standard array (and therefore fairly bland stats from our point of view) and be extremely interesting in terms of role or personality.

There are places that the DM can overstep. And this is one of them.

I don't agree. And I know, it's in the trend to complain about bad DMs, but I can honestly say that in 40+ years and thousands of game, I have never ever had a bad DM. Some DMs were more to my taste than others, but nothing ever really bad.

On the other hand, I've had scores of really, really bad players, of all breeds.

Respect your DM and the work he does for your entertainment, and his choices, because he is a clever guy, probably more clever than you, and who has made his choices for a reason. As he is not playing for himself, by default, think that the choices were made for YOUR entertainment during his games. If you make these hypothesis, I can guarantee that you will enjoy the game a lot more.

 

[clearstream]

You can also powerplay if you like, the game is broad enough for it, but I don't think that you will find a single proof that it was the intent of the game and in particular of that edition.

What do you believe players find appealing about XP and level advancement?

 

[Lyxen]

What do you believe players find appealing about XP and level advancement?

About XPs ? I don't know, I haven't played with XPs for about 15 years (and even at the time it was not a question of taste, it was a practical solution to having a multi-DMs campaign where characters could be used with any DM, so it was a way to record progression of characters in various stories and make sure that they were suited to the challenges). And about the level advancement, it reflects what is happening during stories, heroes evolve, learn new abilities as they face more and more dangerous foes. Every single saga of the genre is built around this, it's even a mark of a good story.

It's also useful to check the difficulty of the challenges, as long as you realise that the system only works properly with vanilla characters. Complaining that the system does not work with ultra-optimised characters is actually ridiculous. TTRPGs where there is no challenge difficulty computation is really hard, I love Runequest but it's so hard to tailor adversaries...

However, once you realise that technically, it's all fake anyway because if you are one level higher, the foes will also be one level higher, and that the challenge is still going to be the same difficulty because the DM will ensure it, you realise that gaining more "power" does not mean anything really.

If anything, some part of powergaming is about insecurity in overcoming the challenges, but if you play well (in the sense of really living the story), even defeat is part of a good story anyway. Don't you get bored about your optimised characters always winning fights by the skin of your teeths ? Do you really think that it's because you are oh so clever ? Don't you think it's totally artificial anyway ?

 

[Bill Zebub]

And again, on this, I am speaking from experience and I suspect that you are not. I have started D&D in 1978...

I'm so excited I get to quote Ted Lasso.

I'm thinking of the episode where Ted challenges Rupert to darts, with a bet. If you've seen it you know it, and you haven't I'm not going to write the whole synopsis. But the part I'm thinking of is how Ted describes his epiphany as a kid when he realizes that all the people he has trouble with in school share the common trait of not being curious. They label and condemn, but they never ask any questions. (This leads to the denouement that Rupert really should have asked Ted if he ever plays darts, instead of assuming he didn't.)

Which leads to the point that although I don't really believe in Appeal to Authority arguments based on length of time gaming, and I also don't like to give specific personal information on the internet, your suspicion is incorrect.

But really this is indicative of why having this discussion with you is really so very unsatisfying, and why, after this post, I think I will largely disengage: you keep telling other people what they think, and why they do things, but I don't really see you asking other people questions to understand their point of view. I genuinely am interested in what others have to think, but I'm far less interested in being preached at, let alone told what I think.

and we were already really roleplaying at the time, almost as we are playing today. So no, it was not grafted over the game over time, it was there right at the start.

This is from the beginning of the book from D&D 1st edition:

Prior to the character selection by players it is necessary to roll three six-sided dice in order to rate each as to various abilities, and thus aid in selecting a role. Categories of ability are: Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution, Dexterity, and Charisma. Each player notes his appropriate scores, obtains a similar roll of three dice to determine the number of Gold Pieces (Dice score x 10) he starts with, and then opts for a role. Character Abilities Low score is 3-8; average is 9-12; high is 13-18. The first three categories are the prime requisites for each of the three classes, Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, and Clerics.

Strength is the prime requisite for Fighting-Men. Strength will also aid in opening traps and so on.

Intelligence is the prime requisite for magical types. Intelligence will also affect referees' decisions as to whether or not certain action would be taken, and it allows additional languages to be spoken.

Etc.

I bolded a key bit, but taken as a whole it's pretty clear that in 1st edition "role" meant "job within the team". You "play" that "role". Roleplaying. Q.E.F.D.

And the rest of the book is entirely an enumeration of mechanics. Nowhere is there anything about backstory, motivation, personality, or all that modern "roleplaying" stuff. (It's possible I missed something; if so I would appreciate it being pointed out.)

Now, you may have played in the modern style back then, and if so then you were ahead of your time. But the game itself doesn't suggest that, and among my gaming group (both my junior high friends and the local college kids we played with) that sort of roleplaying was limited to physical descriptions of characters and the occasional Dwarf calling for mead with a Scottish accent.

Moreover, it's been more than 40 years for me, but more importantly (and again powergamers don't like this pointed out), it is the way all recent editions and in particular 5e are described by the designers. And 5e has been in existence for about 7 years now, so no, roleplaying is the basis and the intent of the game.

I agree that later editions, especially 5e, added this stuff, and I think it's a change for the better. But that's my point: the game evolved that way, but wasn't originally that way.

Again, I'm not claiming it's not a part of the game...I love the modern approach to roleplaying...just that this argument that "It's called roleplaying therefore it's really about acting out your character's unique personality" is completely false. That's not the origin of the term. It was first and foremost a game about overcoming monsters and traps using game mechanics.

 

[Maxperson]

And I'm sorry, but if you allow them all, it's because you want powerful characters.

You make a lot of grandiose and false claims. I can in fact allow them all, because I want all story options to be available. I do not desire powerful characters. They happen or not.

One of the biggest issues with people is that they tend to think that others all think like they do. Cheaters think everyone cheats. Scammers think everyone scams. Powergamers think everyone is out to powergame.

Most of the feats (and in particular those used in these builds) are only there for pure technical power, they have nothing to do with the story or the roleplay.

Name one that can't be used for story/roleplaying purposes.

 

[Lyxen]

I'm so excited I get to quote Ted Lasso.

I have no idea what you are speaking about.

Which leads to the point that although I don't really believe in Appeal to Authority arguments based on length of time gaming, and I also don't like to give specific personal information on the internet, your suspicion is incorrect.

Then I am surprised that you are apparently just discovering things that have been obvious to absolutely every long time player that I've played with on 4 continents. And that from both reading the books (see below) and from experience in playing.

But really this is indicative of why having this discussion with you is really so very unsatisfying, and why, after this post, I think I will largely disengage: you keep telling other people what they think, and why they do things, but I don't really see you asking other people questions to understand their point of view. I genuinely am interested in what others have to think, but I'm far less interested in being preached at, let alone told what I think.

It's interesting because I have the distinct impression that I'm the one being preached at for not understanding the ultimate light that Floating ASIs are for the game.

This is from the beginning of the book from D&D 1st edition:
I bolded a key bit, but taken as a whole it's pretty clear that in 1st edition "role" meant "job within the team". You "play" that "role". Roleplaying. Q.E.F.D.

And as the word of "role" at that time was certainly not defined as "job within the team", this is something that was used from 3e onwards.

And it's easy to prove, if you like AD&D:

• Introduction to the PH: "Get in the spirit of the game, and use your persona to play with a special personality all its own."
• A fantasy role playing game is an exercise in imagination and personal creativity.
• As a role player, you become Falstaff the fighter. You know how strong, intelligent, wise, healthy, dexterous and, relatively speaking, how commanding a personality you have. Details as to your appearance, your body proportions, and your history can be produced by you or the Dungeon Master. You act out the game as this character, staying within your “god-given abilities”, and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment). You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic!
• Each participant in the campaign created by the referee must create one or more game personas.
• Alignement, in the DMG: "It likewise causes a player character to choose an ethos which is appropriate to his or her profession, and alignment also aids players in the definition and role approach of their respective game personae."

Come on! It's all over the place !

And the rest of the book is entirely an enumeration of mechanics. Nowhere is there anything about backstory, motivation, personality, or all that modern "roleplaying" stuff. (It's possible I missed something; if so I would appreciate it being pointed out.)

Yes, you did miss quite a bit, as I've pointed out earlier.

Now, you may have played in the modern style back then, and if so then you were ahead of your time.

I was not. Just to prove to you that you have probably been reading all these books wrong ever since they came out, even before AD&D, this is from the introduction of the Basic Set, the first that I had: "This is a role-playing game. That means that you will be like an actor, imagining that you are someone else, and pretending to be that character. You won’t need a stage, though, and you won’t need costumes or scripts. You only need to imagine... Later, when you play the game with others, you will all be playing different roles and talking together as if you were the characters. It will be easy, but first you need to get ready."

Just because some players decided to play the game as an adventure/fighting game (probably the first powergamers, your direct ancestors ! I'm just joking here, OK? ) does not mean that everyone did a partial reading of the rules.

I DMed my very first game for my French friends after bringing my box back from the US where I had been to improve my english, and after reading the above, my friends all had their personae...

But the game itself doesn't suggest that, and among my gaming group (both my junior high friends and the local college kids we played with) that sort of roleplaying was limited to physical descriptions of characters and the occasional Dwarf calling for mead with a Scottish accent.

Then I think there was a lot of selective reading done, see above.

I agree that later editions, especially 5e, added this stuff, and I think it's a change for the better. But that's my point: the game evolved that way, but wasn't originally that way.

And see above, it might not have been for some tables, but I can assure you that it was ever true roleplaying in all the countries that I've gamed in.

Again, I'm not claiming it's not a part of the game...I love the modern approach to roleplaying...just that this argument that "It's called roleplaying therefore it's really about acting out your character's unique personality" is completely false. That's not the origin of the term. It was first and foremost a game about overcoming monsters and traps using game mechanics.

And as demonstrated above, you are wrong in this, it was in the rulebooks all along, right at the start where it should not have been missed.

That being said, my apologies if I'm a little terse in my answers in general. I've never been a good teacher, and I'm more of the "be good, be brief, be gone" type of manager at work, so repeating things that are obvious like the above when people should probably know better makes me snappish. It's really good that you come to the discussion with an open and inquisitive mind, it's a great quality, I had noticed this and I'll try to take that into account for my next replies.

 

[Lyxen]

You make a lot of grandiose and false claims. I can in fact allow them all, because I want all story options to be available. I do not desire powerful characters. They happen or not.

Well, statistically, for you, they happen 100% of the time. Coincidence ?

One of the biggest issues with people is that they tend to think that others all think like they do. Cheaters think everyone cheats. Scammers think everyone scams. Powergamers think everyone is out to powergame.

Yes, I admit that having been one makes me very good at detecting others. For example, people whose characters are only amongst the most powerful archetypes of the game.

Name one that can't be used for story/roleplaying purposes.

Easy, the example was in the answer, GWM is certainly very much about the role... Come on!

 

[Bill Zebub]

And it's easy to prove, if you like AD&D:

So let me get this straight: I posit that D&D originally was not about "roleplaying" as we mean it today, and that meaning evolved over later editions, and you refute that assertion by citing....2nd edition?

Yes. That's exactly my point. And with each subsequent edition that facet of "roleplaying" gained greater prominence.

this is from the introduction of the Basic Set, the first that I had: "This is a role-playing game. That means that you will be like an actor, imagining that you are someone else, and pretending to be that character. You won’t need a stage, though, and you won’t need costumes or scripts. You only need to imagine... Later, when you play the game with others, you will all be playing different roles and talking together as if you were the characters. It will be easy, but first you need to get ready."

I just looked for that quote and couldn't find it. Do you have a page number? (I'm looking in Red Book.)

And, even if it's there, I don't know how you look at < 1% of these original texts and extrapolate that the major point of these games were to inhabit your unique persona. I just skimmed through the Against the Giants modules, and other than a reference here and there to a personality trait of a boss figure ("sly and vicious") there is nothing about interacting with NPCs or really doing anything other than exploring, killing, and looting. Nor do the pregens at the end have a single bit about personality or background.

If your version of history were correct, then all the cultural references to D&D "back in the day" would reflect that. Instead we have phrases like "Kick down the door, kill the monsters, and take their stuff", the Munchkins game, and on and on and on. Either that's what the game was about back then, or the vast majority of people were playing the wrong way.

I'm sorry to not accept your anecdotes as conclusive evidence, but regardless of your claims of how you played D&D back then, the game clearly was not written that way.