D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Bill Zebub]

Also

1) the stat bump is power-gaming

2) the stat bump is inconsequential

Exactly. And the corollary to that is:

1) "Stop worrying about stats and just roleplay."

2) "The stats your character might have will spoil my immersion."

 

[Bill Zebub]

I probably wouldn't exactly call it powergaming, but people say thing 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.

Again, it's not giving powergamers more power, it's giving people who have both powergaming and roleplaying tendencies the ability to satisfy both without conflict, instead of having to choose which itch to scratch.

Meanwhile, people who don't feel that conflict don't have to do anything differently. They can keep making characters like they always have. The only possible complaint they have is that other people will make characters they don't approve of. And I'm sorry but I really don't have much sympathy for that position.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, it's not giving powergamers more power, it's giving people who have both powergaming and roleplaying tendencies the ability to satisfy both without conflict, instead of having to choose which itch to scratch.

Sure. But that powergaming element needs to be there for the conflict to exist. People who didn't have that impulse have always made dwarf bards, halfling barbarians etc. And when that is pointed out, people get offended.

Meanwhile, people who don't feel that conflict don't have to do anything differently. They can keep making characters like they always have. The only possible complaint they have is that other people will make characters they don't approve of. And I'm sorry but I really don't have much sympathy for that position.

Ultimately working with self imposed limitations is not satisfying the same way than working with external limitations, at least not to me. Like for example one challenge for sorcerers is that they can't wear armour, so they need to use spells and other means to defend themselves. But what if we just gave sorcerers free heavy armour proficiency? Sure, you could still just choose to not wear armour, but it wouldn't be quite the same would it?

Though I mainly look this from GM perspective, so it is mainly about world building and verisimilitude.

 

[Dausuul]

Reading those four bullet points together makes me think you're not only after elimination of ability scores but elimination of classes as well.

I can see how you'd reach that conclusion, but no, I would never eliminate classes. They do constrain your options, but they offer major benefits to make up for it. Ability scores (IMO) do not.

The class system allows the designers to custom-tailor a suite of mechanics to fit a particular concept; ensure those mechanics work in harmony; balance them against other classes across a range of power levels; and present the entire package as a single choice to be made at chargen. This is incredibly helpful to the novice gamer, who can just pick an option off the menu and be done. And for the veteran, these customized suites greatly extend the replay value of the game. Bored with playing wizards? Try a warlock, or a fighter, or a rogue--it's a whole different way to D&D*.

This kind of thing, where you get a packet of mechanics bundled together in service to a concept, is one of D&D's strongest features. But I want the packets to be as independent as possible, allowing them to be mixed and matched. So you pick your class, and your race, and some skills; and ideally any combination of these things should result in an effective character. That ideal may be impossible to achieve in practice (and feats are a whole other can of worms), but it's possible to get tolerably close.

Ability scores introduce a ton of unnecessary dependencies. Class, skills, and (until TCoE) race all hook into ability scores, and you get punished mechanically for choosing combinations that don't fit. On top of that, ability scores themselves have concepts attached to them, telling you that your character is strong or weak, smart or dumb--so that's another factor pushing and pulling at your stat picks, depending on how much you care about it. And they add substantially to the complexity of the game, and the concepts attached to them are sloppy and ill-defined (is Wisdom perceptiveness or willpower? and why the hell would you describe either one as "wisdom?"), and they've got the silly split between "bonus" and "score" where you almost always care about the bonus but once in a while you want the score instead. They're just a mess all around and D&D would be better off without them.

Of course, that's never going to happen. Ability scores are too bound up in D&D tradition, trying to excise them would provoke the mother of all backlashes. WotC will never get rid of them entirely. But every time they sever one of those dependencies, I cheer them on.

And that's why I wholeheartedly favor "no racial stat mods," or failing that, the floating-mod system in Tasha's. It's one more dependency severed.

*This is somewhat undercut in 5E by the existence of the "full caster" and "multi-attack martial" archetypes, which between them encompass 10 out of 13 classes. Switching from wizard to sorcerer, or fighter to ranger, does not provide nearly as much mechanical variety. On balance, I think this is a weakness, but if the designers had had to create twelve fully unique classes to launch 5E, they'd still be working on the PHB today.

 

[BookTenTiger]

The amount of people on the planet that are indeed "special" is a tiny tiny fraction. For every Stephen Hawking, or Annie Lennox, or Lebron James, there are 1 million others that are average, not special at all. That is one of the fundamental issues driving this debate, and so many other real world issues today. The majority of the West (I can't comment on other places) truly believe that "I am indeed special, and the world should cater to me". That is what so much of this ASI conversation, or the entire Pokemon universe of species available, or the power leap that came with Tasha's, is all about.

There are a number of questionable things you've said here, but I want to focus on this quote.

You are conflating "I am special" with "the world should cater to me."

These are two very different ideas, and by combining them you are turning the critique of a mechanic (floating ASI's) into a critique of the people who use that mechanic.

Is this your intention? Are you really saying that people who use a mechanic like floating ASI's think the world should cater to them?

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

There are a number of questionable things you've said here, but I want to focus on this quote.

You are conflating "I am special" with "the world should cater to me."

These are two very different ideas, and by combining them you are turning the critique of a mechanic (floating ASI's) into a critique of the people who use that mechanic.

Is this your intention? Are you really saying that people who use a mechanic like floating ASI's think the world should cater to them?

I am not going to argue about the narcissism running rampant in much of the technologically connected world. One only has to look at Facebook, Instagram, whatever other social media outlet to see it. But I am not going down any path to debate you on that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Sure. But that powergaming element needs to be there for the conflict to exist. People who didn't have that impulse have always made dwarf bards, halfling barbarians etc. And when that is pointed out, people get offended.

I must be missing that part of the conversation, because I haven't seen anybody get offended by the assertion that they are conflicted between choosing +1 or the race they'd like to play.

Or maybe you are referring to the use of the word "powergaming". Since it has a negative connotation, I can see how the people in the previous paragraph might be offended by that term.

Though I mainly look this from GM perspective, so it is mainly about world building and verisimilitude.

Then you get to use whatever rules you want, whether or not they are in the books. Right?

 

[BookTenTiger]

I am not going to argue about the narcissism running rampant in much of the technologically connected world. One only has to look at Facebook, Instagram, whatever other social media outlet to see it. But I am not going down any path to debate you on that.

I didn't ask you about technology.

I asked you about floating ASI's.

Do you really think people who like this rule want the world to cater to them? Are you critiquing the rule or the people?

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, absolutely. But there's no 'right' answer as to what those would be. Just that they would be different between cultures within the species.

Of course. My argument was not about what a right answer would be, but that the difference in heights would surely result cultural differences, whatever those were.

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[Maxperson]

That's like saying that fixed ASIs "cater to" the idea of racial superiority, genetic destiny, and master races. Which they absolutely, incontrovertibly do, for those (few, I hope) who have that goal. But it doesn't mean that everybody who likes fixed ASIs likes them for that reason.

Which is more superior? +2 strength, +2 constitution, or +2 intelligence? From where I'm sitting, it's situation and all of them are simultaneously superior and inferior to each other, depending on the circumstances.

Fixed ASIs don't cater to the idea of superiority unless only one race has them. One can certainly twist them into that meaning, but that's not the same as catering to them.