D&D 5E Why do you use Floating ASI's (other than power gaming)? [+]

[Minigiant]

Did I say monks? Because yeah monks. Monks need floating ASI.

(My group's monk died this weekend again)

 

[Zubatcarteira]

A Barbarian definitely needs all the AC they can get since their Reckless Attacks gives a huge boost for enemies to hit them, but at least they can wear armor and shields if needed. Monks really do get rekt with their d8 hit die, and reliying entirely on Unarmored Defense if they don't have magic items (they can BA dodge, but it's pretty bad due to low Ki in general).

On Topic: Beyond the world building angle, it's rough to think of something, since ASIs will always make you better at a thing, even if it's not your main one. Like, if a Barbarian bumps CHA, then gets Skill Expert to get even better Charisma (Persuasion) checks, is that optimizing? He's not following the class' main thing, but he's definitely trying to become as good as he can at something else, which I guess you could call it optimizing, just not for combat. If the campaign has more talking than fighting, it can surely be more beneficial.

So, if you definite optimization as just doing the class' main thing well, there's a ton of concepts you can play with, the smart Barbarian, strong Rogue, charismatic Monk, etc. If optimization is just trying to be good at something, then, I don't know how you can use ASIs and not be that.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Was that with floating ASI or without?

That was with the fixed ASI from the PHB.

 

[Umbran]

If I could go back in time, I'd probably change the title to Powergaming instead of Optimization.

You should be able to edit the thread title. Or, I can do so for you if you wish.

 

[BookTenTiger]

You should be able to edit the thread title. Or, I can do so for you if you wish.

Ah, I thought I could not. Good to know!

For whatever reason, it feels disengenuous to go back and edit my thread title after so much discussion has happened... But I think I should have! It might have saved some misunderstandings.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ah, I thought I could not. Good to know!

For whatever reason, it feels disengenuous to go back and edit my thread title after so much discussion has happened... But I think I should have! It might have saved some misunderstandings.

You can add a clarification and indicate that it was edited in later. That way the thread still makes sense to anyone reading it afterwards.

 

[BookTenTiger]

You can add a a a clarification and indicate that it was edited in later. That way the thread still makes sense to anyone reading it afterwards.

Or I could edit my whole first post so it looks like people replying to me are crazy!

...Your idea is probably the better one.

 

[MoonSong]

This has nothing to do with floating ASI's though, which can give more flexibility to create sub-optimal characters too.

The person you were responding to wasn't saying they'd treat someone with a less effective character as a problem, they were saying that they didn't want to be treated the way you were treated either.

What I meant is the attitude "I need a +3 on my prime stat or I'm SOL" is not healthy. Mainly because it helps legitimize the: "and everybody else who fails to have one in their own character is a worthless player..." just to be clear, I'm not accusing @Adamant of anything, but by keeping this attitude they enable others who hold the more extreme one. Even yourself calling these characters sub-optimal is a tacit acknowledgement that having a +3 is "the normal" and everything else is "crippled". And it isn't really the case, you can have very scary characters without that +3.

 

[Adamant]

What I meant is the attitude "I need a +3 on my prime stat or I'm SOL" is not healthy. Mainly because it helps legitimize the: "and everybody else who fails to have one in their own character is a worthless player..." just to be clear, I'm not accusing @Adamant of anything, but by keeping this attitude they enable others who hold the more extreme one. Even yourself calling these characters sub-optimal is a tacit acknowledgement that having a +3 is "the normal" and everything else is "crippled". And it isn't really the case, you can have very scary characters without that +3.

To be clear, when I said I didn't want to feel ineffective compared to the guy next to me I meant that unless most of the group has weaker stats as well the difference is very noticeable and quite annoying. It would be the same if we were using rolled stats and part of the group rolled really well, or even if there's a big difference in optimization.

An example would be that I was in a group doing an old AL epic, which was very undertuned because it was their first attempt at a T3 adventure. I was playing a perfectly effective ancestral guardian barbarian, fairly defensive in nature, but didn't get to protect anyone because we had several powerful spellcasters and an offensive martial. At 1 point I ended up knocking a fire giant off a platform and jumping down on him, just because I wanted to get a chance to fight something before they got blown up.

 

[FrogReaver]

What I meant is the attitude "I need a +3 on my prime stat or I'm SOL" is not healthy. Mainly because it helps legitimize the: "and everybody else who fails to have one in their own character is a worthless player..." just to be clear, I'm not accusing @Adamant of anything, but by keeping this attitude they enable others who hold the more extreme one. Even yourself calling these characters sub-optimal is a tacit acknowledgement that having a +3 is "the normal" and everything else is "crippled". And it isn't really the case, you can have very scary characters without that +3.

There's a line somewhere though. Whether you draw it at +3 or +1 or -2 or wherever isn't super relevant. At some point a player that comes away from character building with a -X in his primary stat is a worthless player for my style of gaming. That behavior is just not compatible with table expectations.