D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Minigiant]

This hits two completely different issues at once; one relevant, one not so much IMO.

First, that some stats are useless for some classes isn't a problem: it naturally follows that someone with a bent for, say, fighting is going to want to be (or become) stronger and-or tougher than the average Sue and brains (while useful) and-or looks aren't likely to matter as much in the pursuit of becoming a better fighter. Flip that around with an arcane caster - if he's strong enough to carry his spellbooks around and is robust enough to not fall ill every other week, what more does he need physically? Here, all the development and training is most likely going to go into brain power.

The point is relevant

Because of burnout.

D&D is almost 50 years old. Video, board, war, TT, and mobile games have been using D&D tropes for almost as long.

It's not that Str-only fighters and Int-only wizards are bad. It's that many fans are bored of it. And since other media copied D&D, they were bored of it before even getting into D&D. And the more fans you pick up, the more bored fans you get.

And Zeus help you if you DM. I DMed so many dwarf fighter NPCs than I can count.

So it should be expected that someone wants to run a gnome barbarian, or Minotaur wizard, or tiefling monk, or goblin fighter who deals extra damage by carving sine waves in the air with their longsword, invoking Imotigen's Theory.

I'll say it again. "D&D. Suffering from Success Dj Khaled We the Best."

 

[Scott Christian]

If wanting a +1 to your most important stat is powergaming then are all half orc fighters pwergamed characters?

I would say they are half-orc fighters. They have strengths and weaknesses at first level. Just like an elven fighter will have strengths and weaknesses at first level.

The point that is getting made on almost every page is the strengths for some race/class combos are not enough for some people. That is where the +1 comes in.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I was actually thinking of historical theory. For a long time now, the idea that an individual can make great historical events move forward (the so-called "Great Man theory") has been unpopular, in favor of the force of history moving things along in an ultimately inevitable direction. I recently listened to a history podcast that suggested that, due to the strong emphasis our culture currently places on individualism and the ability of a single person, the Great Man Theory make actually make a comeback. I thought that was interesting, and attempted to extrapolate that idea to the current gaming environment. I certainly didn't intend to offend anyone. I'm an academic at heart, and try to approach this issues from an intellectual perspective, even when those around me try to make it an emotional one.
There is ample historical evidence that the more people are in a position to.make themselves heard, the more opinions tend to factionalize and emotions run hot. This happened when the printing press was invented and writing proliferated as never before, and it seems to me to be happening now with the ease folks have to put their opinions in public view on a heretofore unimaginable scale. I think that's very interesting, and worth discussing, and can be applied to how we play the game we love.

Hm, I see.

I don't think Great Man Theory will make a comeback though (and I really hope it doesn't, not only for simplifying the complications of history, but how others may use it to massively simplify current events - I think we can all agree with everything happening in the world right now, that people's individual choices and actions do have an impact, especially when they work together, that reflect a more decentralised pattern of action than many typical narratives reflect); but I also don't think history moves in an inevitable direction at all. It's all together much, much more complicated. I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to go into thise here however, but history is made up of both some important decisions made by individuals and also the choices made by incalculable millions that push forward change.

 

[clearstream]

Side note: it's interesting how often this seems to happen - a specific adventure or module that plays great at one table turns out to be poor at another. I suspect this largely comes down to two factors: the zeitgeist of the players at the time and the degree to which the DM enjoys and-or likes the module; but it does tell me,t when looking for opinions on a module, to get more than one and take an average!

On Griffon Mountain, I've read over the years multiple reviewers rating it as one of the best modules ever published. Most caveat that it suits sandbox campaigns. I can't recall reading anyone saying it turned out poorly at their table. I kept my copy until it literally fell apart. I now have it only in digital format.

 

[Lanefan]

The point is relevant

Because of burnout.

D&D is almost 50 years old. Video, board, war, TT, and mobile games have been using D&D tropes for almost as long.

It's not that Str-only fighters and Int-only wizards are bad. It's that many fans are bored of it. And since other media copied D&D, they were bored of it before even getting into D&D. And the more fans you pick up, the more bored fans you get.

And Zeus help you if you DM. I DMed so many dwarf fighter NPCs than I can count.

This doesn't bother me as much. For me, having DMed 157* NPC Dwarf Fighters just makes it all that much easier when the need to DM number 158 comes up.

And there's countless ways one can play a Str-only fighter if one looks beyond the mechanics and makes it stand out via its personality, quirks, ideas, ethics (or lack of), etc., etc.

* - a random number I pulled out of the air which would be replaced by the truth if I remembered it...

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I would say they are half-orc fighters. They have strengths and weaknesses at first level. Just like an elven fighter will have strengths and weaknesses at first level.

The point that is getting made on almost every page is the strengths for some race/class combos are not enough for some people. That is where the +1 comes in.

But are they? When Amy has a 17STR fighter who is a half orc, and she picked half orc because she wanted a super strong fighter is that power gaming?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I just realized something. I keep seeing these two arguments against floating ASIs:

1) "This is about people wanting to be special snowflakes."

2) "This is going to result in no meaningful differentiation between characters."

Hmmmmm.

 

[Minigiant]

This doesn't bother me as much. For me, having DMed 157* NPC Dwarf Fighters just makes it all that much easier when the need to DM number 158 comes up.

And there's countless ways one can play a Str-only fighter if one looks beyond the mechanics and makes it stand out via its personality, quirks, ideas, ethics (or lack of), etc., etc.

* - a random number I pulled out of the air which would be replaced by the truth if I remembered it...

Yeah but mechanics can matter.

If I don't wanna play a spellcaster, I don't wanna play a spellcaster. And in 5e, that leaves you will 3* options.

*Monks don't count.

 

[clearstream]

I just realized something. I keep seeing these two arguments against floating ASIs:

1) "This is about people wanting to be special snowflakes."

2) "This is going to result in no meaningful differentiation between characters."

Hmmmmm.

Also

1) the stat bump is power-gaming

2) the stat bump is inconsequential

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I probably wouldn't exactly call it powergaming, but people say things like, "with floating ASIs I can play a dwarf sorcerer" etc. But you always could, they just were not quite as powerful. If people don't want to play a race unless it can start with the best possible score in its main stat, then that is purely about character power. Now I don't think this is an unreasonable desire, but lets not pretend it is not about power. I get it. Having that 16 is very tempting.