D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[billd91]

So I guess the argument for floating here is: why should it cost me something to play a longsword-wielding elf?

Whether floating or non-floating, it still costs you something. Comparing the two alternatives of floating (+2 to strength) vs fixed (+2 to dex) - you may get the bonus on the longsword (and Str skills, Str saves) by floating, but it costs you +1 to your AC (for anything outside of heavy armor), ranged attacks and damage, initiative, Dex skills, and Dex saves that you'd get with the fixed bonus.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I'm a fan of fixed ASIs... but exactly what level they should be, I'm flexible on. I really liked the +1 for class that was in the 5e play test and was a bit disappointed they rolled it back to race. Given my druthers, I'd go as far as +1 for race, +1 for sub-race, +1 for class, +1 for background and for the class/background bonuses, I'd give them a choice from 2 reasonably thematic options.

If the background option kept 5e’s emphasis on Invent-your-own-background, the background ASI would essentially be Floating, which I like.

 

[FrozenNorth]

As I hinted at earlier in the thread, I think PF2's version is almost great. To make it actually great IMNSHO you would take out the red queen race. IOW, the cap and the boosts should be set up such that you can hit the former without using all of the latter.

OK, I’m curious. What is the “Red Queen” race? Does it involve chopping off their heads?

 

[Helldritch]

My campaign has floating ASIs. My players have the following..

High Elf Radiant Sorcerer
Wild Elf Ranger
Fallen Aasimir Fighter
Halfling Bard

Please let me know which one of those characters was powergamed by being able to float an ASI.

A few flukes, a rule do not make.
There are bound to be table that will restrain themselves. But a lot more will not. So far, as I said, if you followed, I know of 5 tables using floating ASI and four of these are powergaming the floating ASI and one does not. And I know a lot more tables that will not use floating ASI exactly because of the power creep that it can bring. That rules, was toughtlessly implemented in TCoE.

Also, it depends a lot on the DM. A DM that focuses mainly on RP and not on tactical combat might not see the problems that TCoE can bring because the problem might never be apparent. Especialy if combats are staged as story propelers to the next chapter. If a DM is a lot more like me where combat is not a story propeler for the next chapter but is its own thing, these problems will arise quite fast. We did the maths. And we see the results around us and it reinforced our doubts up to the point of confirmation. Floating ASI are not for every tables. I'd even dare to say that they're not for every tables but for a minority.

Also, how long does a character lasts in your games? In mine, a player can expect to make 1 to 3 low level characters at the begining of the campaign as the attrition is quite high. With luck you might make only one and this character might last up to 14th and even 20th level. Most campaigns end around level 14 but some last a bit more. We let the story arise from the survivors, not from the original characters as the begining character might have died way before the campaign ends.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Whether floating or non-floating, it still costs you something. Comparing the two alternatives of floating (+2 to strength) vs fixed (+2 to dex) - you may get the bonus on the longsword (and Str skills, Str saves) by floating, but it costs you +1 to your AC (for anything outside of heavy armor), ranged attacks and damage, initiative, Dex skills, and Dex saves that you'd get with the fixed bonus.

But with fixed, I don't get the choice - I have to value initiative over hitting with my main weapon, or not play the character.

 

[jmartkdr2]

A few flukes, a rule do not make.
There are bound to be table that will restrain themselves. But a lot more will not.

You have evidence for this, I presume? Because I can add my own anecdotes to the "this totally doesn't happen" pile, which while not statistically significant is hard to dismiss.

So far, as I said, if you followed, I know of 5 tables using floating ASI and four of these are powergaming the floating ASI and one does not. And I know a lot more tables that will not use floating ASI exactly because of the power creep that it can bring. That rules, was toughtlessly implemented in TCoE.

So we're at 3 not powergaming to 4 that do... not an overwhelming majority.

Also, it depends a lot on the DM. A DM that focuses mainly on RP and not on tactical combat might not see the problems that TCoE can bring because the problem might never be apparent. Especialy if combats are staged as story propelers to the next chapter. If a DM is a lot more like me where combat is not a story propeler for the next chapter but is its own thing, these problems will arise quite fast. We did the maths. And we see the results around us and it reinforced our doubts up to the point of confirmation. Floating ASI are not for every tables. I'd even dare to say that they're not for every tables but for a minority.

They're definitely a good fit for all 6 tables I've played with in the past couple of years.

 

[Amrûnril]

I think my preference would be for no ASIs or floating ASIs regardless, but I'd be much more sympathetic to arguments for fixed ASI if every ability was a reasonably effective choice for every class. With the current balance, though, where each class revolves heavily around one or two ability scores, I think fixed ASIs are a clear mistake. A plus one to your primary ability modifier may be unimportant compared to the effect of the dice, but it's massive compared to the effect of any other ability score. This means that, with fixed ASIs, over half the possible race-class combinations will feel like a clear choice to handicap yourself.

 

[TwoSix]

Also, it depends a lot on the DM. A DM that focuses mainly on RP and not on tactical combat might not see the problems that TCoE can bring because the problem might never be apparent. Especialy if combats are staged as story propelers to the next chapter. If a DM is a lot more like me where combat is not a story propeler for the next chapter but is its own thing, these problems will arise quite fast. We did the maths. And we see the results around us and it reinforced our doubts up to the point of confirmation. Floating ASI are not for every tables. I'd even dare to say that they're not for every tables but for a minority.

Please give an example of a class for which there is a floating ASI race that is obviously the superior choice over VHuman. If you can't, there's no power creep.

The idea that floating ASIs has unbalanced the game is just silly. Something like Twilight Cleric is way more of a balance concern than floating ASIs.

 

[Maxperson]

My campaign has floating ASIs. My players have the following..

High Elf Radiant Sorcerer
Wild Elf Ranger
Fallen Aasimir Fighter
Halfling Bard

Please let me know which one of those characters was powergamed by being able to float an ASI.

I'm not really in this argument, but I think for them to properly answer that, you'd need to provide their starting stats after bonuses were applied and where those floating bonuses went.

 

[Maxperson]

It's FOMO. If all the numbers were hidden (ie the dm did all the die rolling behind a screen and you never actually saw your character's sheet) I would bet no one would be able to tell who had a 14 and who had a 16 in their key ability. You might feel a bigger difference, but it'd probably be closer to a 12 to 18 gap before people reliably guess who's got the better number (just based on experience and gut feelings, here.)

I think fear of missing out is a large part of it. Beyond that, though, I think a lot of us have been programmed to need those stats. Most of us here on the forum are long time players, going at least as far back as 3e and in many cases 1e or before. Stats used to matter a whole lot more and we've got decades of game play behind us telling us that we need that extra +2 to the prime stat. 5e changed that, but one edition where you don't need the extra +1 isn't going to change the way most people have been trained to think and feel about stats.