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

[Scribe]

Again, there’s a difference between requirement and expectation. No, you don’t need a 65% hit rate to be effective. But the 65% hit rate is the baseline assumption around which progression is balanced.

Where? Why is it 65% (70% with bless) and not 60%.

And there absolutely is a difference between requirements, and expectations, and desires.

 

[Charlaquin]

The normal point buy is so stingy that if you want to play a typical well-rounded fantasy adventurer or someone who has significant side competence aside their class focus you kinda cannot max your main stat.

Interesting. I don’t see it that way. With point buy and a a racial +2 and +1 you can reliably get a 16, two 14s, and either a 12, a 10, and an 8, or three 10s, and you may even have one point left over. That to me is plenty for competence in a primary stat and at least one side-stat. Two if you’re willing to risk putting one of your lower scores in Constitution.

Of course, all this relies on either picking the right race/class combination or having floating ASIs, so I can see why point buy would seem overly restrictive to folks for whom floating ASIs are out of the question. In that sense, I guess I agree with you, I just think ASIs are the problem rather than point buy.

 

[Charlaquin]

Where? Why is it 65% (70% with bless) and not 60%.

First of all the developers have stated that 65% accuracy was what they found to be the sweet spot in playtesting (don’t remember exactly when or where, probably a dev blog post on the old WotC site). Second, because that’s what you can reliably achieve with point buy if you play a beneficial race/class combo or use floating ASIs. If that wasn’t the balance point, players who do that would be able to overshoot the expectation, which is the same exact problem just from the opposite direction.

And there absolutely is a difference between requirements, and expectations, and desires.

Glad we can agree on that.

 

[Scribe]

First of all the developers have stated that 65% accuracy was what they found to be the sweet spot in playtesting (don’t remember exactly when or where, probably a dev blog post on the old WotC site).

If you or anyone else has a link to that, I'd love to see it, because yes that would be quite an interesting confirmation.

 

[MoonSong]

Yea, that's a tough one. I just don't think modern D&D really works with the motivation to play a character who has stats of 6 7 8 9 10 11 or something like that. Ultimately, D&D is a power fantasy.

Without resorting to recommending other games, those ideas scream out for homebrew where character abilities scale off Prof Mod, instead of ability score.

It is not the system, it is the others at the table. Like I said, I have no problem with the Tasha's rule for ASIs. It is great! My problem is the general dismissive attitude towards not having that 16.

And please don't take it wrong, but you came as tone deaf: "Oh, the thing you want about meaningful weaknesses is not possible with this game where you can have minuses with the wrong -right?- score, but sure you can have them on a hypothetical one where they are impossible because competence is tottally divorced from individual choice and thus enforced across the table!" n_n

Please note: The comments I've made are not my personal view, I know we don't need a 16 to be effective.

Well, you had me fooled for a while. ¬.¬

 

[Scribe]

If that wasn’t the balance point, players who do that would be able to overshoot the expectation, which is the same exact problem just from the opposite direction.

I'd say there's a reason VHuman is so popular.

 

[Baron Opal II]

First off, "5e expects that at 4th level you will have an 18 or 20 in your prime requisite." is a conclusion I gained earlier, not a quote from the book.

The Proficiency bonus runs from +2 to +6. From 5th to 12th level it is +3 to +4. For the prime adventuring time, it seems, you can expect to get about +4 bonus for your level. An attribute of 16 to 18 gives a similar bonus at first level. At 4th level every class gets a +2 bonus to an attribute (or a feat that might give +1). This raises the attribute to 18 to 20. At a value of 20 the attribute gives a bonus of +5, which you won't gain from level until 13th level. Furthermore, 20 is the highest value an attribute can have under normal circumstances. Once your prime requisite reaches 20, you usually don't have much motivation to raise other attributes and can spend the ASIs for feats, unless you want to boost other secondary values, such as more hp from Constitution or boosting a particular saving throw.

Therefore, for the period of time that it seems most people enjoy playing their characters, you can have a base bonus of +6 to +8 to your roll in what you are good at. Magic items, tools, feats or features can add another +2 or double proficiency bonus, but for the most part that's your bonus for those levels and an attribute of 18+. At a bonus of +8, you have a 95% chance of making an Easy check (10), 70% chance of making a Medium check (15), and a 45% chance of making a Hard check (20). A typically heavily armored target will have an AC of 16 - 20, maybe.

Those odds will feel right at the table. It will be hard to remember a failed Easy check, except for that time your character was cursed and at disadvantage. A fight or situation against a Hard check will be memorable, and missing about half the time will make people seek out and feel rewarded by opportunities for advantage. Therefore, I think the game is designed to encourage the player to get as high a prime requisite as possible so that, right before prime adventuring time, at 4th level they choose the ASI and have an 18 or 20.

Now, reading through the PHB just now, I've discovered that 15 is the highest score you can get for an attribute through point buy. I thought it was 16. Even so, I think my point still stands.

 

[Minigiant]

Let's just say

There is a reason why I ran healers or solo classes in MMOS. Few people criticized the healer's build. And if they did, they wouldn't for very long.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you or anyone else has a link to that, I'd love to see it, because yes that would be quite an interesting confirmation.

One would probably have to go digging around with the wayback machine, but might be worth a look.

 

[Scribe]

Let's just say

There is a reason why I ran healers or solo classes in MMOS. Few people criticized the healer's build. And if they did, they wouldn't for very long.

Most content wasn't based around healer checks, in my experience.

DPS Checks...yep.