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

[TheAlkaizer]

Hard disagree.

The DM doesn't have the job of making people have fun.

Everyone at the table has that responsibility together and the selfish ones need to get booted straight away.

I didn't say it was exclusively the DMs job. I fully agree that it's a shared responsability. But as the person preparing content, the DM has to be aware of who's sitting at the table and what they enjoy. I think you have to give opportunities to everyone to have their fun and enjoy the game, and they have to seize it and also enable their fellow players fun.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm not wrong. What I said is not in conflict with what you're describing. As a DM, my fun is also when my players have fun. But it's still my fun. I'm not going to jump into philosophy here, but I probably would not be doing it if I didn't enjoy it. It makes me feel good. If it didn't, I wouldn't do it. I'm not doing it for some altruistic reason, I'm doing it for the selfish reason that making them have fun makes me have fun. Which is why I chose game design as a career.


I do think that DMs have a right to put some restrictions in regard to their setting, intended tone, etc. But unless the players decided to have a group concept and that one person decides to change his mind and do something random, I don't see how it's forcing it down everyone's throat. It's no ones business if you feel like playing an half-elf sorcerer, and it's no ones business if I want to make powerful choices. It has nothing to do with pride. You don't choose your flaws, or bonds, or backstory out of pride. You do it because you're excited to explore that, to roleplay it, etc. Well mechanical choices are taken exactly the same way.

But we probably have different definitions of powergaming. You seem to define powergaming as someone that builds the most powerful character possible in spite of anything else happening around him. I define a powergamer as someone that tries to make the most powerful version of his character concept. I also know that they get most of their fun in going through tough encounters and overcoming bad odds. My theater kids group are not fond of combat encounters, they don't mind them. But one every two sessions is enough. But they get their fun from expressing and exploring who their character is. I give different things to these two players; but neither is further or closer to what D&D is. They're both right into the fertile ground of what D&D is.



I personally don't have a example, because I rarely play, and if I do campaigns tend to fizzle out. And to be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of multiclassing as a player. I haven't played enough to be bored of the vanilla concepts.

However, even though multiclassing hasn't been rampant in my games (even though I allow it), on the two occasions where a player used multiclassing, it was for story purpose. We reached a point in a campaign where it made sense for their character to go a different way, and that player asked me if it was OK he if started multiclassing at the next level.



It can be that way. I've had players treating D&D like a Diablo game, they'd make their mechanical choices in a vaccuum and arrive with their sheet ready next session. But we were fine with that as a group. But most of the interactions I had with what is described as powergamers, they made their choice of concept and story, and after that made the most efficient choices possible. They did not go "I really want to use this broken build I found on the internet... hmmmm... which class is better to do that." They said that they wanted to a certain class and ancestry, came up with a concept, and then scoured the books to choose their options and take the ones that would make that concept as efficient as possible.


Except that I never said powergaming, crafting builds and all that were the intent of the game. But I acknowledge that what rules and content is included in the book is as good a clue as the preface to determine what kind of game this is.

A quick example would be the game symbaroum which I recently bought and started reading. Someone on here highlighted the fact that the game really sells itself, both on the backcover and in the preface, as a game where you do these incursions into a dangerous forest. It's gritty, survival-focused. You go in, you go out. Except that there's no exploration rules in the book. You could argue all you want that the preface and opening chapters say it should be played one way, but the rules don't support that. It's not the same as what we're describing, but my point is that rules are absolutely pertinent in gauging the design of a game.

You progress by obtaining experience, you obtain experience by killing monsters.


Which is not a controversing statement. If it was just that, I don't think anyone would have bitten. But binary statements like "Sorry, if you allow this, it means that this is what you want" or "Powergamers are selfish" are not in the same boat.


A few lines away...

This is spot on. And I think it's a corollary to the postulate that "jerks are jerks, and you can't prevent them from being jerks by tweaking the rules."

There are jerks of every flavor, including powergamers (even if powergamers happen to be the sexiest and most virile of all jerks).

By far the most obnoxious, disruptive player I've had in recent years was somebody playing a barbarian who decided during the first session, upon getting into combat with some beasts (axe-beaks, I think), that their character loved animals and would refuse to kill any. When the rest of the party fought back, they tried to save the animals by attacking their companions. All in the name of roleplaying.

And yet I don't (except as satire) claim that all roleplaying leads to this, or try to tell others the real reason they are roleplaying ("you just want to disrupt everybody else's fun").

 

[abirdcall]

I didn't say it was exclusively the DMs job. I fully agree that it's a shared responsability. But as the person preparing content, the DM has to be aware of who's sitting at the table and what they enjoy. I think you have to give opportunities to everyone to have their fun and enjoy the game, and they have to seize it and also enable their fellow players fun.

I think sometimes the table has to eject people who are not suitable for the game as well.

I mostly stick to playing with good friends but sometimes invite someone else like a friend of a friend. And sometimes they spoil the mood and make me miserable. I'm past trying to cater to people. If their fun isn't my fun they can game somewhere else.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I think sometimes the table has to eject people who are not suitable for the game as well.

I mostly stick to playing with good friends but sometimes invite someone else like a friend of a friend. And sometimes they spoil the mood and make me miserable. I'm past trying to cater to people. If their fun isn't my fun they can game somewhere else.

Oh, I agree with that too. I didn't meant it as it's the DM's job to make things fun no matter what the situation.

I've ejected people from my table a few times, and I'm very careful in picking players that I think will enjoy playing with each other. Having a group that's mostly interested in one or two aspects of D&D makes for a fun, focused and easy to run campaign. If I remember, 5E does describe a few categories of players at the start of the books; I generally try to stick to maximum two types of players.

 

[Maxperson]

Nope, not one shred of proof so far.



You are not a counter example, you are a great example of powergamer that does not even confess it to himself. In particular the fact that you think that Floating ASIs are opening new possibilities is a clear example of that. The possibilities were there all along, but never taken because of the fear to lose that +1 purely technical advantage.

But honestly, you are the one flogging you with it, I am reproaching nothing here, I've been one myself, and a number of my very old D&D friends still are and we play together every week, it's a lot of fun. To each his own.



No, after proving to you that all editions have been designed with roleplay in mind, and showing to you that the intent of 5e is certainly not to know all the rules and even less to optimise based on them, I'm asking your perspective that it's even in the design intent of the game.

Your powergaming blinds you dude. Please don't respond to me any further on this topic.

 

[Lyxen]

Your powergaming blinds you dude. Please don't respond to me any further on this topic.

You first, my friend.

By the way, I'm not a powergamer anymore, but I don't feel insulted either. It's just a way to play the game, not the one that I prefer but I hope that we are still allowed to have tastes ?

 

[Lyxen]

I'm not wrong. What I said is not in conflict with what you're describing. As a DM, my fun is also when my players have fun. But it's still my fun. I'm not going to jump into philosophy here, but I probably would not be doing it if I didn't enjoy it.

And then, sometimes I feel like I'd rather do something else, and I still prepare and run the game for my friends.

It makes me feel good. If it didn't, I wouldn't do it. I'm not doing it for some altruistic reason, I'm doing it for the selfish reason that making them have fun makes me have fun. Which is why I chose game design as a career.

I would argue that it's not exactly the same, but it's your feelings.

I do think that DMs have a right to put some restrictions in regard to their setting, intended tone, etc. But unless the players decided to have a group concept and that one person decides to change his mind and do something random, I don't see how it's forcing it down everyone's throat.

But it is. See examples including from another poster about his animals-loving barbarian.

It's no ones business if you feel like playing an half-elf sorcerer, and it's no ones business if I want to make powerful choices. It has nothing to do with pride. You don't choose your flaws, or bonds, or backstory out of pride. You do it because you're excited to explore that, to roleplay it, etc. Well mechanical choices are taken exactly the same way.

They can, which is exactly what I'm arguing, players do not get complete freedom to do whatever they please, either in terms of roleplaying or in technical terms, because a general principle about freedom is that it stops where it infringes on someone else's.

But we probably have different definitions of powergaming. You seem to define powergaming as someone that builds the most powerful character possible in spite of anything else happening around him. I define a powergamer as someone that tries to make the most powerful version of his character concept.

I honestly have trouble seeing the difference, unless you imply that the character concept takes into account what others are doing, which is exactly my point.

I also know that they get most of their fun in going through tough encounters and overcoming bad odds. My theater kids group are not fond of combat encounters, they don't mind them. But one every two sessions is enough. But they get their fun from expressing and exploring who their character is. I give different things to these two players; but neither is further or closer to what D&D is. They're both right into the fertile ground of what D&D is.

That's perfect, but let me ask you: do these kids, who are apparently indifferent about combat, really want to optimise their characters for that ? Is there a drive for optimisation ? Where does it come from ?

I personally don't have a example, because I rarely play, and if I do campaigns tend to fizzle out. And to be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of multiclassing as a player. I haven't played enough to be bored of the vanilla concepts.

Same for me, despite having had continuously two or three campaigns in parallel ever since 5e came out.

However, even though multiclassing hasn't been rampant in my games (even though I allow it), on the two occasions where a player used multiclassing, it was for story purpose. We reached a point in a campaign where it made sense for their character to go a different way, and that player asked me if it was OK he if started multiclassing at the next level.

Considering what you've told me about your gaming group, I am not surprised, but then I am not sure that they display any trait from being a powergamer either.

It can be that way. I've had players treating D&D like a Diablo game, they'd make their mechanical choices in a vaccuum and arrive with their sheet ready next session. But we were fine with that as a group. But most of the interactions I had with what is described as powergamers, they made their choice of concept and story, and after that made the most efficient choices possible. They did not go "I really want to use this broken build I found on the internet... hmmmm... which class is better to do that." They said that they wanted to a certain class and ancestry, came up with a concept, and then scoured the books to choose their options and take the ones that would make that concept as efficient as possible.

And how did the class/race choices compare to the usual power gaming levels of archetypes ?

Except that I never said powergaming, crafting builds and all that were the intent of the game. But I acknowledge that what rules and content is included in the book is as good a clue as the preface to determine what kind of game this is.

I don't. I would argue for example that 3e and 4e, which were very technical games which had a precise vocabulary could be taken that way, and indeed, it created a wide powergaming community, and the concept of the RAW. But honestly, with the way 5e has been written, in plain english, with fuzzy rules all very much subject to a DM's interpretation, it's only the force of habit of some that makes them keep on, and what is funny is that they still do it while complaining all the time that the game is not crunchy enough to really create builds.

A quick example would be the game symbaroum which I recently bought and started reading. Someone on here highlighted the fact that the game really sells itself, both on the backcover and in the preface, as a game where you do these incursions into a dangerous forest. It's gritty, survival-focused. You go in, you go out. Except that there's no exploration rules in the book. You could argue all you want that the preface and opening chapters say it should be played one way, but the rules don't support that. It's not the same as what we're describing, but my point is that rules are absolutely pertinent in gauging the design of a game.

And my take on the design corroborates the stated intent of the designers, this is a fuzzy game where the DM's rulings are needed all the time. Powergamers argue all the time that they are entitled to know in advance about rules and deviation from the RAW, but again the funny thing is that even they cannot really agree what the RAW is. This is not an optimiser's paradise, it's thankfully back to AD&D where the DM is at the centre of things to interpret rules which are incomplete and imprecise.

If you just looked at what most of the content of the book is, you wouldn't be wrong to think that this is in most ways a tactical, or combat-focused or character-building game first. You said it yourself that roleplaying doesn't need rules per say, hence why there is a preface where the designers take a moment to say that despite everything you find in the book, there's more to it.

I'm sorry, but it's not the way it is worded. It's not "more to it", it's the very intention of the game, and rules are just tools (these are the words of the designers themselves), not the aim of the game. It really amazes me that people who venerate the rules and spend their time trying to combine them continuously ignore the part of the rules that explains this to them. It's such a biased reading...

The rules don't fully reflect how this game is played. You're asking me to show you where on the package of the Hershey it was chocolate bar.

The rules completely explain how the game is played. Just read the introduction to the PH, or the DMG. But for some reasons, these sections which are less "crunchy" are continuously ignored by people who pretend that they don't exist.

Even the most technical section about Hack and Slash is not based on optimisation. This is because the game is about playing it, not exploiting the rules for power, not spending hours in one's basement trying to create a build.

Or just watch shows like Critical Role. Do you feel powergaming there ? Do you feel that it's technical ? It's not, all the characters are underused technically, they make mistakes all the time compared to the rules, but no one ever brings it to the table. No powergaming, no rules lawyers. But they focus on their characters personna and story, and have a blast.

Which is not a controversing statement. If it was just that, I don't think anyone would have bitten. But binary statements like "Sorry, if you allow this, it means that this is what you want" or "Powergamers are selfish" are not in the same boat.

And again, you are strawmaning here, strongly. Re-read what I wrote.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Same exact 6 numbers to all of them.

And yet......................False Equivalences remain false.

Yes, the exact same 6 numbers, placed in six different slots. That is 720 possible combinations. So, please explain how over 700 combos is “cookie cutter”? It certainly isn’t unrealistic. And if your only acceptance of “equivalence” is going to be people IRL being assigned arbitrary values for their constitution, then there is nothing equivalent to even compare too, so we are going to have settle for “good enough”. Especially since your argument is comparing it to reality, and there is no equivalence to compare too.

Nope. I said every PC having the same 6 numbers at 1st level is unrealistic.

Cool. The whole born schtick is yours, not mine. I'm talking about PCs. Stop with the fallacious arguing.

No, sorry, you made the claim right here.

False Equivalences are false. First, I removed it because it's unrealistic, not boring. Every PC isn't going to be born with the same stats. Second, a proper analogy would be if hammers were unrealistic, so I removed all hammers from the game. At that point it would have nothing to do with paladins or PCs. It would just be a general house rule.

So, your claim, your words. You removed it because it was unrealistic. Followed by "Every PC isn't going to be bron with the same stats" which is only logical to say if that was what you mean by unrealistic.

And even if you had said that it was unrealsitic for the to have the same stats at level 2, which you didn't, then that is still completely unsupported. Heck, there are only 16 possible numbers they could have from rolling 3d6. Having the same six isn’t that far of a stretch for people who follow similar regimes.

Yes, yes it is. Some of them will have 18's before they even begin training. Others 11's. And it's absurd to think they they will all have the same physique, training regimen, and will build muscle in exactly the same way. I mean, you're arguing here that they are more cookie cutter than even I am.

Most fastballs thrown by most Major League Pitchers average between 90 and 100 mph. The average NBA player is 6ft 6 inches. The average IQ of a surgeon is 105. The Marines have a physical fitness minimum they have to achieve to qualify for their ranks.

Are they identical? No. But they aren't being abstracted into game terms, and can have 0.005 differences between them. But the very idea of having a minimum standard for atheltic training in a profession or education in a career speaks to this meaning that they work within a narrower range of these abstract numbers. And therefore matching these numbers is easy to imagine.

Also, if they have an 18 strength before they begin training, and after level 1 they have an… 18 strength. How does that work? Their training was useless in building muscle and making them more effective? What if before you were educated you had an effective 11 Intelligence, but you absorbed information like a sponge and ended up at an 18 after you finished your training and reached level 1?

The point isn’t that all of them are identical, but that they could logically end up in identical places based on their variety of experiences. Again, there are only 16 possible numbers to cover millions of people across multiple types of training. There is going to be overlap, there has to be overlap. There simply aren't enough combinations for every single person to be completely unique.

What does any of that have to do with tons of tables using arrays and point buy?

Who cares what “tons” of tables do? Your issue is that you think it is unrealistic for people to share numbers. But, in my experience, even if you encourage people to use the array, some of them are going to roll. And if some people are rolling, then you may only have two or three people with the standard array. Which, unless they are playing the same class, still won’t be identical cookie cutter characters.

Your concern, practically, is miniscule. You would need more than one person at the table to pick the standard array instead of rolling (rare) and then have them play the same exact class (even more rare) before you would even need to begin about them being "cookie cutters"

The archetype has been present for all dwarves since 1e. You don't get to change that.

Says who? Stories change. Archetypes are only collections of stories. It used to be the idea of a female warrior was impossible, they only existed so that it could be shown that they would lose to the true, manly hero.

If the community decides that Dwarf Bards are awesome, no amount of “but it’s against type” is going to prevent that type from changing.

More than likely? Clerics usually mix it up physically as well as with spells. That takes strength, constitution and wisdom, and if they want to preach to the masses, charisma. They can't have bonuses in everything with an array.

They can mix it up physically, but about half of all clerics get a boost to cantrip casting. Also, Toll of the Dead works in melee range and is very good, keying off wisdom. Additionally, about half of clerics only get Medium armor, meaning they need at least a positive Dex to get their AC up.

Array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Even is it goes Wisdom, Constitution, Strength then Dexterity they will have a 12, which is a +1. They don’t particularly need charisma or Intelligence, and those might end up being the 10 or the 8.

So, yes, more than likely the cleric has a positive dex. If that happens, then your dwarven cleric is just as graceful as the Average Elf.

You do realize that it has nothing to do with PCs being extraordinary, right? These are two completely different things.

They aren’t completely different, because we are talking about rules for generating PCs. If the standard rules already end up with PCs more extraordinary and dexterous than the average elf, then why does it matter that the rules reflect the average elf? That has already failed, because every elf that is a PC is automatically extraordinary. They are as strong as the average orc, as tough as the average dwarf, as intelligent as the average gnome, ect ect ect.

If you say that this doesn’t matter, because PCs are extraordinary, then it doesn’t matter if the PC rules are floating, because they are extraordinary anyways. Which also ties into how weird it is to have people insist that PCs are perfectly average people. They aren’t.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Powergaming isn't the intent of the game.

Tasha's also isn't powergaming, and you have given zero reasons examples of it being so. You claim that you table came to a consensus that it is powergaming, then you should have these examples. And yet, none are forthcoming. The most you have been able to claim is that powergamers will powergame. A tautology isn't convincing.

 

[Lyxen]

Powergaming isn't the intent of the game.

Cool, we agree on this.

Tasha's also isn't powergaming, and you have given zero reasons examples of it being so.

The fact that people who could have explored any sort of class/race combination before the Floating ASIs become an option are now claiming that at last they can is a clear proof that that +1 and its visible power is what they are looking for in the game. I don't need more than this.