D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Lyxen]

I am well aware that the PHB advises players which abilities to put their highest scores into. According to what you have said previously, doing so is not required: a player following that advice is power gaming seeing as it will make their character stronger in play. Or can you explain exactly what the difference is between 'building a reasonably efficient character and not gimping yourself' and power gaming? Is it a 14 instead of a 16? On what grounds do you argue that, given that a race + standard array is very likely to result in a 16* (inevitable for standard human, nearly certain for a half-elf, or must the latter avoid following the PHB advice when it comes to their floating +1s?)

And once more, you seem determined to find a fault there. I have explained to you multiple times what the difference is. And as for the race choice after rolling the dice, first it's easy to fix by asking people to choose their race/class first, and second, this is why humans are still viable for those who really want higher stats.

It is a strawman to introduce here 'asking the DM to enable options': we are discussing what should be the future core rules, not what a player might beg from their DM.

I didn't think we were, it's not the title of the thread, and I usually don't participate in threads about the future editions because it's so uncertain that it's utterly pointless and degenerates in 5e bashing 99% of the time. For me, it's just about Floating ASIs as currently available in the game.

Still, it does seem like the kind of hedging you have committed yourself to once you start special pleading between 'reasonably efficient' and 'power gaming' while refusing to accept anyone liking their highest score in their primary ability - as advised by the PHB - might not be power gaming.

And have I not also said that there is a wide range of behaviours here ? sigh

It's hard to understand then why you are not aware of the extremes of optimisation that are only possible using the 4d6k3 system, and why most optimisers use standard array or point-buy as a fairer starting point. You're conscious of the Anydice evaluation of the 4d6k3 average array, relative to the standard array, right?

The fact that 4d6k3 usually gives slightly higher rolls has little to do with optimisation, unless you allow people to add their ASIs wherever they want, in which case it makes it WAY better (which is another reason for not allowing floating ASIs). Don't confuse the two, optimisers are frustrated by rolling stats because of all these odd numbers. And the reasons for the optimisers (the true ones, not the uncountable copycats all over the place) to use standard arrays is that it allows them to get exactly what they want where they want, and to compare results.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Has it been addressed in this thread how to differentiate the races without ASIs?

For example, what makes the Strong race seem strong without a raw bonus to their strength score? Similar for the agile, enduring, and beautiful people? I imagine there would be a bias against a race that is inherently smart or wise.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

And once more, you seem determined to find a fault there. I have explained to you multiple times what the difference is. And as for the race choice after rolling the dice, first it's easy to fix by asking people to choose their race/class first, and second, this is why humans are still viable for those who really want higher stats.



I didn't think we were, it's not the title of the thread, and I usually don't participate in threads about the future editions because it's so uncertain that it's utterly pointless and degenerates in 5e bashing 99% of the time. For me, it's just about Floating ASIs as currently available in the game.



And have I not also said that there is a wide range of behaviours here ? sigh



The fact that 4d6k3 usually gives slightly higher rolls has little to do with optimisation, unless you allow people to add their ASIs wherever they want, in which case it makes it WAY better (which is another reason for not allowing floating ASIs). Don't confuse the two, optimisers are frustrated by rolling stats because of all these odd numbers. And the reasons for the optimisers (the true ones, not the uncountable copycats all over the place) to use standard arrays is that it allows them to get exactly what they want where they want, and to compare results.

Roll4, choose 3, 6 times, will over time, produce 2.13 more attribute points than std array or an optimised 27 point buy.

I am an optimiser at heart. No bones about it. I feel that my char (already vastly superior to the average NPC of 10's across the board) must be good at his chosen profession, otherwise why do it? As the Joker wisely said "If you are good at something, never do it for free." I don't watch professional sports to watch the worst, or even the very good, compete. I watch the best do what the best do best.

That being said, I am currently in a game where the DM had us roll stats (which I hate, for the reasons you give), and he goes even further, where you roll 4 dice, choose 3, and do that SEVEN times. I ended up with a bizarre set, where my Bladesinger started, at level 1, with 10's in 2 stats, a 9, a 12 in Con, but a 20 in Dex, and 18 in Int (High Elf PHB). I offered to lower the Dex to 16 and take 14 in Wis. No, he likes crazy stats.

I STARTED with an AC of 22 (Mage Armour + Dex + Bladesinger), 27 if Shield spell is applied. That is ridiculous for any 1st level char. It is ridiculous for a 8th level char. Before anyone says "well, you could have started with a 10 or 11 or 13 in Int", read my comment about watching pro sports. There is ridiculous on both ends of the spectrum. There are those that think it is hysterical to gimp a char into total uselessness, and have the other players pick up the slack, and then there are nightmare scenarios, like mine, at the other end of the spectrum.

Rolling stats is the fundamental problem when coupled with Floating ASI's. My char was designed with static ASI's and a truly weird set of dice rolls.

The game is built around bounded accuracy. Rolling stats wrecks that. Floating ASI's allows for the potential to make it even worse.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Has it been addressed in this thread how to differentiate the races without ASIs?

For example, what makes the Strong race seem strong without a raw bonus to their strength score? Similar for the agile, enduring, and beautiful people? I imagine there would be a bias against a race that is inherently smart or wise.

1. In the theoretical system races would be given a pile of special rules like Powerful Build, Darkvision, Stone inning, etc...

2. A normal member of a race is described as started out in the Monster Manual. This reflects the "average" of that group. PCs are from that group but do not necessarily have to adhere to it for the fiction to hold true since they can represent an extreme outlier in the data.

I can extrapolate that if someone is a professional basketball player they are tall, but then you have Muggsy Bogues who was 5'3". His existence does not make the assumption untrue, but it is an outlier in the data.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

You can very easily play a human with a schtick from your class and roleplay, you don't need a feat for that.

Between +1 everywhere (which, with rolled stats, can result in a lot of good stats) and a feat, depending on what feat you allow, I don't think it's more "powerful" to starts with one. But I usually taylor feats to tie with the settings so no -5/+10 pure mechanical feats.

 

[clearstream]

And once more, you seem determined to find a fault there. I have explained to you multiple times what the difference is.

Not really. I can agree that "building a reasonably efficient character and not gimping yourself" by making your primary ability scores highest - as you are advised to do in the PHB - is not power gaming.

And as for the race choice after rolling the dice, first it's easy to fix by asking people to choose their race/class first, and second, this is why humans are still viable for those who really want higher stats.

Up thread your actual words implied that choosing an alignment of ASI and efficacy in play, was always power gaming. If true, the order of choosing race, class, and score allocation doesn't change that. I feel like your position has changed and I certainly would not find fault for that or hold you to any previous position.

I didn't think we were, it's not the title of the thread, and I usually don't participate in threads about the future editions because it's so uncertain that it's utterly pointless and degenerates in 5e bashing 99% of the time. For me, it's just about Floating ASIs as currently available in the game.

From the OP - "For some reason the world comes together to mandate one very important rule that will permeate all societies for the endless future. Oddly, this declaration reflects how WotC is allowed to present character options during creation in their D&D game. There can only be ONE official method."

And have I not also said that there is a wide range of behaviours here ? sigh

I very happily agree that there are a wide range of behaviours. In saying that, I cannot help but recall with irony that you recently very firmly told me that there was no such wide range of behaviours. That you knew player motivations better than they knew themselves, and any alignment of scores with efficacy in game must amount to power gaming. You don't recall making those arguments up-thread? Comments like "...it still boils down to exactly one thing: "I want a 16 because others can have it, and the game is unappealing to me because I am not as powerful as others (coud be)"?

The fact that 4d6k3 usually gives slightly higher rolls has little to do with optimisation,

Do you recall your words up-thread that "let's look at rolling stats, which is still the only default option in the game. I'm not sure how many people are using this, in percentage. There are lots of people who use it for power reasons, because it's the only way in the rules to get really powerful scores..." Is it right to say that over the course of our conversation, you have changed your mind?

 

[TwoSix]

The fact that 4d6k3 usually gives slightly higher rolls has little to do with optimisation, unless you allow people to add their ASIs wherever they want, in which case it makes it WAY better (which is another reason for not allowing floating ASIs). Don't confuse the two, optimisers are frustrated by rolling stats because of all these odd numbers. And the reasons for the optimisers (the true ones, not the uncountable copycats all over the place) to use standard arrays is that it allows them to get exactly what they want where they want, and to compare results.

<waves hand>

Actually, as an optimizer, I'm really not bothered by a lot of odd stats, not even if all 6 are odd. VHuman with a good half-feat pick can handle even your 3 highest stats being odd, and I don't care if my quaternary and below stats are even or odd. Worst case is that I have a low odd number in one of the 3 main saves, and I can always round that off with a half-feat or a +1/+1 ASI.

Personally, I love crazy stats; my next game I'm going to make them roll 7d20s for stats, reroll 1s and 2s, keep highest 6 as your stats. It's for Worlds Without Number, so the stats don't mean quite as much, but I'd love to use that method in 5e also. More of a challenge.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem with your incorrect redefinition of powercreep is that you assume an optimizer is always going to try to pick the "best" build.

Isn't that the very definition of an optimizer?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I disagree.

Comic relief that hurts the party is the best kind of D&D! Expescially when the whole party is that way...

If I'm laughing at the foibles of a character - be it mine or someone else's - it probably (as in, certainly) means I'm having fun, and ain't that what this is all about?

 

[TwoSix]

Isn't that the very definition of an optimizer?

Nope.