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

[Faolyn]

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.

Yes, that is true. You continually say that it isn't required. It has nothing to do with requirements, which is something I have said over and over again.

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.

Is it? That just sounds like a thing where they figured people like bigger numbers, and +2 is bigger than +1. Like I knew a guy in college who had a semi-homebrew system based very roughly on Exalted where you rolled a d10 and multiplied it by 10. However, there were no numbers in between the 10s, so functionally, there was no difference between rolling a 6 and rolling a 60. But bigger numbers felt better to him.

Or maybe they originally had plans for 0th-level characters or NPCs that would only get a +1, and then decided against them.

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.

If by "losing" you mean "dying," well, it's becoming more and more common in non-D&D RPGs for death to be an option, or the PC can be taken out of the game by other means, or rescued heroically later on. Death is no longer seen as a punishment for unfortunate rolls, but as something that should be cinematically appropriate and, if possibly, kinda cool.

 

[Oofta]

Whenever this stuff comes up I recall my 1st 5E PC. A rogue, he started with a 14 dex and eventually got up to a 16 by 20th level. We don't share ability scores so I don't think anyone at the table was ever aware that my PC wasn't "optimized". He was fairly well balanced and had decent out of combat skills and more HP than normal for a rogue so he worked just fine for me. Admittedly as a rogue it was more important to hit, period, so having an off-hand attack (I threw things or cast spells an arcane trickster a for range) made a lot of difference.

End of the day? I sincerely doubt anyone at the table is going to notice a 14 vs 16 unless you tell them. I know I didn't miss it.

 

[Scribe]

Is it? That just sounds like a thing where they figured people like bigger numbers, and +2 is bigger than +1.

Bigger numbers are fine, but in a game with fixed ranges, it's notable to me.

It's both 'just' 5%, while still being double what it was.

If by "losing" you mean "dying," well, it's becoming more and more common in non-D&D RPGs for death to be an option

Failure state in general. I get the impression that the core design is 'struggle averse' to almost a fault.

If we accept the default stat generation is rolled.
If we accept the intent is to pick classes where ASI matches your race.
If we accept the CR guidelines?

Then the intent seems to be, the players are almost never at risk.

Which is fine, I just wish there was a source (my google searching is weak) that they say 'yeah we designed around 70% success'.

 

[TwoSix]

We don't share ability scores so I don't think anyone at the table was ever aware that my PC wasn't "optimized".

I'll be honest, this one always baffles me. Do players at the table not say their rolls out loud? Like "Ok, I rolled a 14, so my to-hit is an 18." It's pretty trivial to figure out everyone's stats within a session or so.

End of the day? I sincerely doubt anyone at the table is going to notice a 14 vs 16 unless you tell them. I know I didn't miss it.

Makes the argument that "Stats are necessary to define the race" kinda moot then, doesn't it?

 

[Scribe]

Makes the argument that "Stats are necessary to define the race" kinda moot then, doesn't it?

In the same way looking at a 14 and feeling it should be a 16 matters, so to does that +Str Orc, or +Dex Elf.

Same degree of matters, depending on ones position on the issue.

 

[billd91]

I'll be honest, this one always baffles me. Do players at the table not say their rolls out loud? Like "Ok, I rolled a 14, so my to-hit is an 18." It's pretty trivial to figure out everyone's stats within a session or so.

We generally don't. We usually just call out the final result.

 

[Oofta]

I'll be honest, this one always baffles me. Do players at the table not say their rolls out loud? Like "Ok, I rolled a 14, so my to-hit is an 18." It's pretty trivial to figure out everyone's stats within a session or so.


Makes the argument that "Stats are necessary to define the race" kinda moot then, doesn't it?

People ask if an 18 hits. I don't remember anyone calling out math out loud unless perhaps to clarify bless or similar.

But even if someone did, I can't imagine anyone in my home campaign caring.

 

[Baron Opal II]

That a +2 is sufficient, and a +1 with your proficiency is 'balanced'.

What do you mean balanced?

 

[Scribe]

What do you mean balanced?

Roughly equal chance of success, or failure.

 

[Faolyn]

Failure state in general. I get the impression that the core design is 'struggle averse' to almost a fault.

I've never gotten that impression. That it might be hard for a higher-level PC to die, yes, but struggle-averse? No.

If we accept the default stat generation is rolled.
If we accept the intent is to pick classes where ASI matches your race.
If we accept the CR guidelines?

Then the intent seems to be, the players are almost never at risk.

Because my table prefers rolling for stats, my players aren't "balanced." They are frequently at risk and often come close to dying.

And it's because of what I told you before, that the "encounter guidelines" are not only not actually real guidelines (beyond "your players can probably handle this much," which is not what I would consider any sort of useful guideline), but the formula for determining CR is often very, very wrong. Plus, many monsters are under-AC'd.

Also, the line, "If we accept the intent is to pick classes where ASI matches your race" does not equal "the players are almost never at risk." Not at all. Not unless you also believe that playing a race with a fixed ASI that matches the class (orc fighters, halfling rogues) also equals "no risk." I honestly can't figure out this logic.

Why is it you refuse to believe that players who want floating ASIs don't want so they won't lose? Many people, including myself, have explained otherwise.

Which is fine, I just wish there was a source (my google searching is weak) that they say 'yeah we designed around 70% success'.

They likely didn't. Some groups like always winning. Some groups like a struggle. Some groups don't care either way. You can't design around all possible gaming styles by using a single level of success.