D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Older Beholder]

And, once more, I'm not forbidding anyone to do anything, if you want high stats, all power to you, god knows that some people are not ashamed to post really high stats characters (where it gets a bit silly, because they are taking people for fools, is when they are saying "honestly, I rolled them ).

I'm just asking people to be honest about their motivations, that's all.

Just another example, one of our few powergamers is starting a campaign, he has asked use to use a feature of DDB where you can roll 10 sets of abilities and choose. Obviously, these characters will end up having powerful stats. I don't need it, and honestly, I don't like it much, because that DM also has a tendency to want to make us feel high powered by giving us really powerful items really early, but I still like his campaigns and the stories, and it's a good chance to play. And I therefore still have to go through the process, because it's expected by the DM and some of the people at the table, although I think that it unbalances the game and makes it even more swingy. But doing otherwise would not be playing by the table rules, and it would create a character which would be a drag for the others, not something that I want to do either. The only thing that I'm not going to do is come brag about my stats and my optimised character (since it's not optimised, not really at least I think), or my "skill" in creating it...

Could it be that you’re projecting your frustrations with the power gamers you play with onto complete strangers on the internet that you’ve never met and know nothing about?

 

[Scribe]

"Nope, it is now RAW", those same people will state "There is no discussion to be had. You guys lost. Either quit the game or adjust."

We are already at this point, I don't need any further proof after.

Spooky UA said it would do this.
GtR confirmed it.
Witchlight UA reinforced it.
Witchlight confirmed it.
Fizbans UA reinforced it.
Jammer UA reinforced it.
Fizbans confirmed it.

It's simply exactly what I expected and has been confirmed over and over.

This is what it is, and there's very little reason to expect it to be reverted.

 

[Lyxen]

Could it be that you’re projecting your frustrations with the power gamers you play with onto complete strangers on the internet that you’ve never met and know nothing about?

Look, I'm not the only one here telling you that Floating ASIs are purely a power option, including some users of the option. Have I even ever said that it's a bad reason to use it? How exactly is that "projecting frustrations" ?

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

We are already at this point, I don't need any further proof after.

Spooky UA said it would do this.
GtR confirmed it.
Witchlight UA reinforced it.
Witchlight confirmed it.
Fizbans UA reinforced it.
Jammer UA reinforced it.
Fizbans confirmed it.

It's simply exactly what I expected and has been confirmed over and over.

This is what it is, and there's very little reason to expect it to be reverted.

A sad sad day in the history of D&D.

 

[Azzy]

D&D, in its first 3 years, had no ASIs, the non-"Advanced" version of the game went 20 years without ASIs. D&D will survive.

 

[Azzy]

It's interesting that in the TSR editions of the game, between class minimums and XP bonuses for higher primary attributes, players were incentivised to place their high scores.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Look, I'm not the only one here telling you that Floating ASIs are purely a power option, including some users of the option. Have I even ever said that it's a bad reason to use it? How exactly is that "projecting frustrations" ?

Once again....if we assume you are correct in what you say, and people only want floating ASI because they want a +3, then what?

You s.eem to feel the need to litigate into reality your view as being the "right" view, so I'm conceding that for the discussion. What does that have to do with how you feel about ASIs?

 

[Lyxen]

It's interesting that in the TSR editions of the game, between class minimums and XP bonuses for higher primary attributes, players were incentivised to place their high scores.

Of course, they were, and in a sense, they still are, it was one way to explain that "culturally", some classes were more appropriate for certain races. This has taken multiple forms throughout the editions, including weird ones like the Favored Class of 3e. Now, these concepts are being debated for reasons that I think are better left out of this debate, it's just that this goes very deep into the game, in particular in the description of species.

 

[Lyxen]

Once again....if we assume you are correct in what you say, and people only want floating ASI because they want a +3, then what?

Then nothing, people are just honest about their motivations and it's much easier to speak openly about the game.

You s.eem to feel the need to litigate into reality your view as being the "right" view, so I'm conceding that for the discussion. What does that have to do with how you feel about ASIs?

This just means that, as a table, if you are allowing Floating ASIs. it should be with the collective awareness that these are probably going to be used as a (small) power option, potentially widening the gap between casual and optimised characters. If you have no problem of that kind (because all of your players are casual or because they all optimised, or because you don't care that much about the power gap, or because you actually think that this is going to lower the gp - which can be the case based on the actual characters being created at your table), then you can ignore that awareness. If, on the other hand, you think that this might cause some difficulties, then you can discuss them in advance and potentially avoid trouble during play. And that's it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You are the one putting negative connotations there, my friend. Again, I've been a powergamer in the past, there is special shame attached to that, to each his own and his own preferences.

The defense rests.