D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Lyxen]

So you believe you understand the motives of other players better than they do themselves. Therefore nothing they can say is likely to make any difference to what you think.

Oh, I'm listening, but so far everything that has been said has just confirmed it.

You have yet to explain what prevents players accomplishing the same thing with fixed ASIs. Particularly salient because for years we have seen players doing exactly that.

The same player that absolutely want a 16 have been doing it for years indeed by choosing only the class/race combination that provided it. On the other hands, players who don't care about this have been exploring the other 90% of the game with full creativity since the beginning without having any problem.

So if the floating ASIs now allow that first type of players to explore combinations that they did not explore before because that 16 was the one thing preventing them, all power to them, I have never said that it's a bad option, I've only said that it's a power option because the only thing important that "leashed" their "creativity" was not having a 16...

At our table we use a low point value random generation, drawing from a deck and assigned as drawn. We use several rules options that consciously power-down our characters. And yet we prefer floating ASIs. The dissonance with your views couldn't be clearer.

Maybe it's just that you hate being double frustrated.

It's just that I would have to see what that "low point value" brings to be sure what it gives you.

Players may care for motivations that you are unwilling to accept they can have. From your point of view, it is indeed inexplicable.

We've been here 29 pages and I don't know how many on the other thread, and yet someone (not even me) on the other thread just said : "Have we seen an answer given yet that did not involve getting a +3 modifier in the primary stat of the PC's class?"

I'm perfectly willing to accept any answer, but the only ones that I've had are along that line, with subtle variations...

 

[Minigiant]

Yes, and I'm saying that this aspect of Modern D&D makes the game considerably worse than it could be.

It's a naturally extension of PCs using 3d6 or 4d6 drop lowest.

You can't say people with all 10s are the same as people with 2 15s and a 6.

Gygax had us roll stats. WOTC normalized ability score modifiers. This results in PCs are better than nonspecial NPCs.

To remove this, you'd have to go back to where no score under 16 gives a modifier.

And if you did that, you would definitely have people asking for floating ASI as a 14 wouldn't be go enough.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm perfectly willing to accept any answer, but the only ones that I've had are along that line, with subtle variations

I've answered you.

Game balance. Some of the classes and subclasses don't work without a 16. Monks. Just Monks. Naked Barbarians. STR rangers. Skill based Battlenasters. Nonhexblade bladelocks.

Basically anytime you combine 2 scores or have a pure warrior with good mental stats or pure mage with good physical stats.

 

[Lyxen]

Game balance. Some of the classes and subclasses don't work without a 16. Monks. Just Monks. Naked Barbarians. STR rangers. Skill based Battlenasters. Nonhexblade bladelocks.

Yeah right, you mean that they don't work satisfactorily for you with your level of power expectation. Why would they work with a 16 and not work with a 14 ? They work EXACTLY the same without the +1.

That is, by the way, the worst mistake done by optimisers, thinking that the character does not work, because they are only doing their experiment in the vacuum of their basement, not in a real campaign, with other characters, with an environment, and with a DM.

Basically anytime you combine 2 scores or have a pure warrior with good mental stats or pure mage with good physical stats.

And of course, having a 16 instead of a 14 instantly solves that. Right...

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah right, you mean that they don't work satisfactorily for you with your level of power expectation. Why would they work with a 16 and not work with a 14 ? They work EXACTLY the same without the +1.

That is, by the way, the worst mistake done by optimisers, thinking that the character does not work, because they are only doing their experiment in the vacuum of their basement, not in a real campaign, with other characters, with an environment, and with a DM.



And of course, having a 16 instead of a 14 instantly solves that. Right...

No I mean they don't work.

Monk AC with 14 DEX and Wis is bad. And they don't get magic armor and shield. So they actually NEED to get 16 DEX and WIS as fast as possible. It isn't desire. WOTC designed the class poorly.

Same with naked barbarians. You need 16 DEX or CON to have AC high enough to melee naked. You can't run in melee only with 14 AC.

Same with STR rangers. The difference is you don't need it for you main stat but one of your secondary. STR ranger needs STR, DEX, CON, and WIS.

Same with Warlord builds and Meleemage builds. Justification of use of the secondary off-stat over the main primary stat requires it to be the same as the main stat.

You actually need to 16 (or third 14) to make up the huge loss of efficiency due to the simplistic game design.

 

[Lyxen]

No I mean they don't work.

I'm sorry, but you have not proven that they don't work, just that they don't work quite as well, nothing more. There is no mathematical proof, and once more, a +1 in one stat for AC will not change anything statistically to the survival of any character, this is well below the swinginess level of a d20.

 

[clearstream]

We've been here 29 pages and I don't know how many on the other thread, and yet someone (not even me) on the other thread just said : "Have we seen an answer given yet that did not involve getting a +3 modifier in the primary stat of the PC's class?"

I'm perfectly willing to accept any answer, but the only ones that I've had are along that line, with subtle variations...

You have seen that answer, but you do not accept it. You've expressed a belief that you know better what motivates others, than they know themselves. There may be no amount of argument that can move understanding forward, because of your unyielding convictions.

An interest in that which is more satisfying is not identical to an interest in that which is more powerful. Consider collecting - which often plays a part in the structures of games - where a player has say four out of a set of five objects. Game designers lean on that player's feelings of satisfaction with acquiring a set (and in a negative light, anxieties about not acquiring the set) to promote further engagement. Scarcity can be applied over that, so that a less powerful, but scarcer, object, becomes more desired.

Motivations in gaming are diverse, but your theory seems to place them along a single axis. A fundamental error you make is in what counts as successful. If you find a way to articulate all that can count as successful in the context of an RPG, then you might - possibly - change your mind.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm sorry, but you have not proven that they don't work, just that they don't work quite as well, nothing more. There is no mathematical proof, and once more, a +1 in one stat for AC will not change anything statistically to the survival of any character, this is well below the swinginess level of a d20.

I already explained it. Those class builds don't even need one +1, they need 2 +1s.

 

[Lyxen]

Motivations in gaming are diverse, but your theory seems to place them along a single axis.

Not at all, but the Floating ASIs are a very simple option, which obviously eliminates a lot of potential motivations. Moreover, this has been confirmed by the fact that absolutely none of the people in favour of it have been able to explain it more than "I want a 16 in my stat (because some can)". From my perspective, the rule does not allow any combination or character concept that did not exist before. It's just like, with any such things, it makes them slightly more powerful, and - as is the case in an unbalanced game - some slightly more than others.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Moreover, this has been confirmed by the fact that absolutely none of the people in favour of it have been able to explain it more than "I want a 16 in my stat (because some can)".

That would be a great point if it were in the same multiverse as a fact.