D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Lyxen]

Before continuing with that claim, you need to answer the question I posted to you (twice) up-thread.

Very well, it all depends on your intentions. If you choose any race because it's a cool race and have a good concept, then it's cool, if you choose it just for the stat bonus, then yes, it's probably powergaming to some extent (although once more, there is no absolute there, there are whole dimensions of behaviour), even if you later disguise it under a more or less thin veneer of "background". DMs, in particular with some experience are not stupid, you know...

That isn't true. The 4d6k3 method and freedom to choose whatever race you want (and thus gain its ASIs), even barring variant human, facilitates rather than prevents optimisation.

Sorry but no, where do you get this bizarre claim from ? The one optimising method is point-buy, in particular because it can be reproduced and you can tailor exactly what you want.

 

[Lyxen]

You can't simultaneously claim to be worried about a "power gap" and advocate for rolling. Strong builds are generally not predicated on "controlling stats". Any optimizer who's familiar with the game knows the best options for low stats, high stats, just one high stat, etc.

And he will not get exactly the scores that he want, and he will balance between evening scores and getting the one feat that his build demands, etc.

It really seems like your concern is more in establishing that "fidelity to concept" should be the only consideration when building characters, and considerations of mechanical effectiveness need to be policed out of the group.

It happens that the two align, in this case. The one problem that we've had (especially with one member of our groups, who's now been ejected twice by the way) was an optimiser doing everything he could to widen that gap, and unfortunately having a few padawans within the group, so yes, some policing was indeed required as he was beyond obnoxious during play. But it's always the same people, and they are not that hard to spot.

Also, you seem to present the "fidelity to concept" as something doubtful, but I would certainly like to know what you have against it ?

 

[TwoSix]

It happens that the two align, in this case. The one problem that we've had (especially with one member of our groups, who's now been ejected twice by the way) was an optimiser doing everything he could to widen that gap, and unfortunately having a few padawans within the group, so yes, some policing was indeed required as he was beyond obnoxious during play. But it's always the same people, and they are not that hard to spot.

Yea, but that sounds more like a personality issue than anything. I mean, I play in a group with a 4 Wisdom halfling druid (not moon druid), he's perfectly OK with the fact my character is far more effective than his. That's sort of the point of playing a 4 Wisdom druid!

My characters are generally the strongest in my main group; my group embraces that because it means the can make the weird concepts they love and not worry we're all going to die terribly because of it.

Also, you seem to present the "fidelity to concept" as something doubtful, but I would certainly like to know what you have against it ?

I have an issue with believing any play priority is better than another. If you want to play a gnome warlock because you love gnome warlocks (fidelity to concept). If I chose to make my half-elf warlock because of their +2 to Cha and because Elven Accuracy is a sweet feat (optimization focus), more power to me. Neither of us have done anything wrong, but neither of our play priorities are better than the other, though.

I'm against the old 2e paradigm that the gnome player is somehow a better "roleplayer" because they eschewed a mechanical bonus, but that mindset is still all too common with a lot of players.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Yea, but that sounds more like a personality issue than anything. I mean, I play in a group with a 4 Wisdom halfling druid (not moon druid), he's perfectly OK with the fact my character is far more effective than his. That's sort of the point of playing a 4 Wisdom druid!

My characters are generally the strongest in my main group; my group embraces that because it means the can make the weird concepts they love and not worry we're all going to die terribly because of it.


I have an issue with believing any play priority is better than another. If you want to play a gnome warlock because you love gnome warlocks (fidelity to concept). If I chose to make my half-elf warlock because of their +2 to Cha and because Elven Accuracy is a sweet feat (optimization focus), more power to me. Neither of us have done anything wrong, but neither of our play priorities are better than the other, though.

I'm against the old 2e paradigm that the gnome player is somehow a better "roleplayer" because they eschewed a mechanical bonus, but that mindset is still all too common with a lot of players.

Sorry, but no. No one plays a 4 Wis Druid. No one plays a 4 whatever char except to say "look at how funny my char is as it fails and drags the rest of the party down with it." Comic relief that hurts the party is not D&D. It is selfish play by a prima donna.

 

[clearstream]

Very well, it all depends on your intentions. If you choose any race because it's a cool race and have a good concept, then it's cool, if you choose it just for the stat bonus, then yes, it's probably powergaming to some extent (although once more, there is no absolute there, there are whole dimensions of behaviour), even if you later disguise it under a more or less thin veneer of "background". DMs, in particular with some experience are not stupid, you know...

So there are times when it is justified to put your highest roll into your primary ability?

Sorry but no, where do you get this bizarre claim from ? The one optimising method is point-buy, in particular because it can be reproduced and you can tailor exactly what you want.

We're speaking of the same game, right? 5th edition D&D?

 

[clearstream]

Sorry, but no. No one plays a 4 Wis Druid. No one plays a 4 whatever char except to say "look at how funny my char is as it fails and drags the rest of the party down with it." Comic relief that hurts the party is not D&D. It is selfish play by a prima donna.

Aren't they power gaming if they choose not to put their lowest score into their primary ability?

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Aren't they power gaming if they choose not to put their lowest score into their primary ability?

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[TwoSix]

Sorry, but no. No one plays a 4 Wis Druid. No one plays a 4 whatever char except to say "look at how funny my char is as it fails and drags the rest of the party down with it." Comic relief that hurts the party is not D&D. It is selfish play by a prima donna.

Well, I mean I've seen his character sheet. His saving throw for his one spell (fun fact, he can't prep two spells until level 5!) is DC 7. He definitely has a 4 Wis.

This was kind of a weird game, where we rolled stats and started at level 0; we didn't pick classes until about 5 sessions in. Druid just fit his character, based on what happened during level 0 play.

Our group has 7 players, we can afford to have some characters not pull their weight in combat. Challenge play isn't really the focus for this group, it's very much focused on character color and thespianism.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Humans are boring? I though people were supposed to be roleplaying yadda yadda yadda.

Although it is kinda clear that WOTC designed the Vuman as the real human race and the normal Human was just designed for newbs to have a human champion fighter that takes 5 braincells to make.

Yup... I am surprised to see that DMs should get a red flag with vuman and ban them. I find roleplaying a inhuman mindset very challenging (fun sometimes, not always) and a "heroic human with a schtick" is something of a "default approach".

 

[Lyxen]

Yea, but that sounds more like a personality issue than anything. I mean, I play in a group with a 4 Wisdom halfling druid (not moon druid), he's perfectly OK with the fact my character is far more effective than his. That's sort of the point of playing a 4 Wisdom druid!

Some players are OK with being overshadowed (or actually design characters that will put them in difficulty), some DMs are great at compensating in terms of spotlight, etc. Yes, at a table, lots of things can happen, but your average player expects at least a modicum of fairness overall.

As 4 a non-moon 4 Wis Druid, why not, but what's the pleasure in this, not to mention the real lack of effectiveness. He would certainly have driven our powergamers crazy, but again your average player will expect a modicum of effectiveness and participation to group efforts.

Not to say that it's bad, but it's also wrong to make choices based on very specific cases, and although that powergamer was the worst, there are still a few padawans, and it's a trait that I've encountered a lot more than 4-wis druid players...

My characters are generally the strongest in my main group; my group embraces that because it means the can make the weird concepts they love and not worry we're all going to die terribly because of it.

If it's what you like in your groups, great, I just want to point out that it's not the average group by far.

I have an issue with believing any play priority is better than another. If you want to play a gnome warlock because you love gnome warlocks (fidelity to concept). If I chose to make my half-elf warlock because of their +2 to Cha and because Elven Accuracy is a sweet feat (optimization focus), more power to me. Neither of us have done anything wrong, but neither of our play priorities are better than the other, though.

I'm sorry, but it's inherently not true. Individual play priorities MUST bow before table play priorities. Otherwise, it's being a wangrod, playing something because you can, but someone that does not contribute to the table's objectives or that, in the worst cases, actually go against the table's objective. And this is true to the same extent for extreme roleplayers, weirdo-ineffective characters and powergamers, with the thing being that I've encountered many more of the later kind than the two previous ones, by a factor of at least 20.

I'm against the old 2e paradigm that the gnome player is somehow a better "roleplayer" because they eschewed a mechanical bonus, but that mindset is still all too common with a lot of players.

Actually, they might have something to do, for the following reason: for me, the good player is one that plays for the table even more than he plays for himself. He does not use excuses like "but my characters is designed that way" (both technically and in terms of personality" to impose things on the table, on the contrary, he adjust the definition of his character so that everyone at the table has fun.

And, again by far statistically (although I've met a few extreme roleplayers and even fewer "purposefully ineffective weirdos"), the ones who are the most disruptive to that are the powergamers, since they built their character to shine more than others. Fortunately, they are also the easiest to take care off if you know how, just forbid the power options, all of them.

In that sense, although I can't say that the gnome player is going to be a better roleplayer, the half-elf for me is more suspicious until I'm assured that he will not use his technical might to hog the spotlight, force others into fights on his terms, and even yell at them for not being efficient and following his perfect battle plans.