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

[Neonchameleon]

Oh, believe me, I think about it a lot. But +4 feels less essential than +3, I guess. It really depends on the half-feat in question and whether or not I want a second 16, or am satisfied with 14 Con/14 secondary stat.

+3 feels in 5e D&D like reaching the benchmark 90% of characters will reach at first level and it's annoying and makes the character feel slightly incompetent not to reach it. If there's a specific way way to reach 18 with one specific race/build this might be better but it feels like going above and beyond.

 

[Minigiant]

Which is just weird. Is it a common problem that monsters don't die fast enough?

That just exacerbates the problem and makes you want a 16 even more.

 

[TwoSix]

+3 feels in 5e D&D like reaching the benchmark 90% of characters will reach at first level and it's annoying and makes the character feel slightly incompetent not to reach it. If there's a specific way way to reach 18 with one specific race/build this might be better but it feels like going above and beyond.

You're speaking my thoughts better than I can today.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

+3 feels in 5e D&D like reaching the benchmark 90% of characters will reach at first level and it's annoying and makes the character feel slightly incompetent not to reach it. If there's a specific way way to reach 18 with one specific race/build this might be better but it feels like going above and beyond.

One thing I've said often, is that I feel they made +1 too common. Humans can get in it everything. So it indeed might make 16 feel like the default and not getting it like a penalty.

In my game I made it so that anyone* can start with 16 in any stat, but some species can get up to 18 in some stats. Humans can't. They can get 17 in anything. And levelling ASIs are always two +1s so starting with even stat is not favoured. No one started with a 18.

(*Or at least all the species I've written thus far. There in theory could be exceptions.)

 

[Faolyn]

I found this link to an earlier EN thread (from '15) which itself links to sample characters on the WotC site--every single one of which has a 16 or 17 in their prime stat, and these sample characters are very often built in a way so that two stats have 16s.

This, combined with the PHB saying that for Bruneor the sample fighter, of course he puts the highest stat in Strength, very strongly suggests that WotC assumes you're starting with a 16.

 

[Faolyn]

You miss by one 5% of the time. It is one point of damage. You still kill the monster. No, I really don't get it.

Also, if you used the custom lineage with a correct feat, you could start with a 18. That's the same difference than 16 has over 14. Why are you not always thinking that you could have done that when you're playing your ability 16 character?

Maybe people don't want to use the custom lineage. I don't. It's not like feats replicate the cool parts of each race, after all.

Also, correct feat? So optimizing using a floating +2 isn't cool but it fine to optimize using a feat?

Also-also, I think you answered your own question here: if people aren't thinking about getting an 18, then maybe that shows that they're not trying to get the highest possible stat?

 

[Scribe]

This, combined with the PHB saying that for Bruneor the sample fighter, of course he puts the highest stat in Strength, very strongly suggests that WotC assumes you're starting with a 16.

Yes, and that also assumes you will therefore succeed at 'at level' tasks, roughly 65% of the time.

That still doesnt mean its required, as we have gone over many times.

I'm searching for this old blog, but I've found that on release, they went with a baseline of +2 Proficiency Bonus, instead of +1 in the beta? Thats interesting.

All in all, it just say's "we expect you to win", especially if a suggestion to start at 16 is followed.

Almost like a tutorial or entry level encounter in PC games. You are not expected to lose, or even have it be a likely potential.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's not about being actually effective, it's feeling effective and contributing to the team.

Also known as “playing the character you want.”

So much of the anti-floating ASI argument seems to be just an attempt to convince people to want something they don’t.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You're speaking my thoughts better than I can today.

Thanks

On thinking about it the difference between a 16 and a 18 would be the difference we (or at least I) saw in 4e between a 18 and a 20. In 4e you could point buy your way up to an 18 in your primary stat, but it cost 16 out of your 22 points (with a 16 only costing 9). And then your race could give a further +2. What I saw in 4e was that >90% of characters had at least an 18 no matter what their race, making it the benchmark. But only about a third to half of characters went all the way to 20 in my experience; although I really don't have enough data both going broad and hitting the benchmark of 18 and going narrow to hit 20 were fairly common.

One thing I've said often, is that I feel they made +1 too common. Humans can get in it everything. So it indeed might make 16 feel like the default and not getting it like a penalty.

Agreed

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Maybe people don't want to use the custom lineage. I don't. It's not like feats replicate the cool parts of each race, after all.

So if you're cool with forgoing bonus in favour of flavour now with custom lineage vs other races, why weren't you with cool with doing that with race selection pre-Tasha?

Also, correct feat? So optimizing using a floating +2 isn't cool but it fine to optimize using a feat?

I'm sure they are equally cool. Or I'd think so. So I was just wondering why people inclined to optimise wouldn't do this?

Also-also, I think you answered your own question here: if people aren't thinking about getting an 18, then maybe that shows that they're not trying to get the highest possible stat?

Right. And I was wondering why that might be.