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

[clearstream]

If one believes floating ASI allows them more creativity, great.

If floating ASIs allow them more creativity, great. To say 'believes' evinces disbelief.

I don't know what bizarre purity test I need to pass here to get everyone feeling all warm and fuzzy over their character stats...

Not a purity test, more a logical one. We frequently hit deadlocks on these forums around reported experiences, with no apparent way to resolve them. Poster A asserts experience X. Poster B asserts experience Y. Without access to each poster's inner state, or robust evidence to bring to bear from elsewhere (e.g. clinical studies of the experiences under contention) we seem to lack means to come to anything other than conclusions divided along the fault lines.

I was thinking about the philosophical framings of possible worlds and pragmatism. While we might resist agreeing that in our actual world such-and-such is X, we can more easily agree that in a possible world it might be X. We can think about what that world would be like - the consequences of X being true - without having to commit to accepting that X is true of our actual world.

In the case to hand, you might doubt that some players find floating ASIs allow them more creativity. But you might be prepared to accept that in some possible (alternate) world, there are players for whom floating ASIs do in fact allow more creativity. One can doubt something, while still accepting it is possible. That seems like what could be implied by the reserved wording you choose.

EDIT So I am asking, could that be leveraged to come closer to resolving these kinds of deadlocks?

 

[Scribe]

If floating ASIs allow them more creativity, great. To say 'believes' evinces disbelief.


Not a purity test, more a logical one. We frequently hit deadlocks on these forums around reported experiences, with no apparent way to resolve them. Poster A asserts experience X. Poster B asserts experience Y. Without access to each poster's inner state, or robust evidence to bring to bear from elsewhere (e.g. clinical studies of the experiences under contention) we seem to lack means to come to anything other than conclusions divided along the fault lines.

I was thinking about the philosophical framings of possible worlds and pragmatism. While we might resist agreeing that in our actual world such-and-such is X, we can more easily agree that in a possible world it might be X. We can think about what that world would be like - the consequences of X being true - without having to commit to accepting that X is true of our actual world.

In the case to hand, you might doubt that some players find floating ASIs allow them more creativity. But you might be prepared to accept that in some possible (alternate) world, there are players for whom floating ASIs do in fact allow more creativity. One can doubt something, while still accepting it is possible. That seems like what could be implied by the reserved wording you choose.

EDIT So I am asking, could that be leveraged to come closer to resolving these kinds of deadlocks?

How about, like others, you just tell me what you want to hear, and then attribute that to me.

 

[clearstream]

How about, like others, you just tell me what you want to hear, and then attribute that to me.

Sure, but what do you think of the proposed method for resolving (or at least moving forward) deadlocks around differing asserted experiences?

 

[Faolyn]

That's all fine if all you care about is combat. For some people, having a PC other than a rogue or bard that can contribute outside of combat also matters. A wilderness fighter who knows how to survive the wilds wants a decent [edit]charisma wisdom[/edit] and maybe the player wants a bit of trader/diplomat as well so they have a charisma over 10.

There is no one true way to play the game. There are all sorts of things to consider, especially if using point buy when building a PC other than DPR.

I think what Minigiant might be saying is that maxxing out your combat scores lets you get fights over quickly, so you can go back to other things. Because long fights are a slog.

Like, a while ago my table decided to try running the old GDQ series in 5e. We rolled for stats--I ended up starting the game at 3rd level with a 20 in my main stat because of that--and we ended up giving up the game most because it was only fights, with very few roleplaying opportunities despite our best efforts to talk to or negotiate with of the monsters--and that's with the DM actively supporting us in doing so.

 

[Scribe]

Sure, but what do you think of the proposed method for resolving (or at least moving forward) deadlocks around differing asserted experiences?

If I understand your post, I disagree with the premise. This isn't about possible worlds.

One believes Floating aids in their creativity. Fine.

What does possible worlds have to do with this?

Again, simply write out what you feel needs to be said, tag my name on the end, and be satisfied.

Unbelievable.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I think what Minigiant might be saying is that maxxing out your combat scores lets you get fights over quickly, so you can go back to other things. Because long fights are a slog.

Like, a while ago my table decided to try running the old GDQ series in 5e. We rolled for stats--I ended up starting the game at 3rd level with a 20 in my main stat because of that--and we ended up giving up the game most because it was only fights, with very few roleplaying opportunities despite our best efforts to talk to or negotiate with of the monsters--and that's with the DM actively supporting us in doing so.

I don’t get it. The DM ultimately is the one who decides if the monsters get hostile and attack. How was said DM “actively supporting” your attempts to talk/negotiate and yet you ended up with “only fights”?

 

[Oofta]

I think what Minigiant might be saying is that maxxing out your combat scores lets you get fights over quickly, so you can go back to other things. Because long fights are a slog.

Like, a while ago my table decided to try running the old GDQ series in 5e. We rolled for stats--I ended up starting the game at 3rd level with a 20 in my main stat because of that--and we ended up giving up the game most because it was only fights, with very few roleplaying opportunities despite our best efforts to talk to or negotiate with of the monsters--and that's with the DM actively supporting us in doing so.

I'm just following the OP's theme. Getting better out of combat skills are important to some people (I'm one) but is not by any means power gaming.

In addition, getting max scores may reduce time in combat a round or so, I just think people overestimate the impact of a 5% increase or an extra point or two. It's not like combat is going to take twice as long if you don't max out combat potential.

Different people have different priorities and preferences. I think many people overemphasize DPR and exaggerate how much of a difference it really makes. It also tends to ignore defenses and out of combat effectiveness.

If all you care about is combat, cool. Just don't be dismissive of people that don't put DPR on a pedestal.

 

[Faolyn]

I don’t get it. The DM ultimately is the one who decides if the monsters get hostile and attack. How was said DM “actively supporting” your attempts to talk/negotiate and yet you ended up with “only fights”?

In part, because of the way those old modules were written. The monsters barely had any motivations, and so the DM didn't have much to work with. At least that's what it seemed; I haven't read the modules myself.
Plus, many of the monsters weren't intelligent.

Also, we actually had two DMs running these modules who would switch off. One DM was much more into RPing than combat and the other was much more into by-the-books combat. (Interestingly, both of them had started with 1e: one was a kid when the books were first published, and the other, who is much younger, was raised by gamer parents).

 

[Faolyn]

I'm just following the OP's theme. Getting better out of combat skills are important to some people (I'm one) but is not by any means power gaming.

In addition, getting max scores may reduce time in combat a round or so, I just think people overestimate the impact of a 5% increase or an extra point or two. It's not like combat is going to take twice as long if you don't max out combat potential.

I have to disagree. I've seen fairly big differences when there's just a point or two, whether I play or run. I do think that class/archetype traits are more important, but the stats do make a difference, especially for attack rolls, save DCs, and for prepared casters, how many spells they can have.

This isn't putting DPR on a pedestal. Big damage is fun, of course, but also useless if your abilities aren't effective in the first place. I'd rather be fairly confident that I'll hit or that the creature will fail its save even if I do a handful of damage than rarely be able to nova.

 

[Oofta]

I have to disagree. I've seen fairly big differences when there's just a point or two, whether I play or run. I do think that class/archetype traits are more important, but the stats do make a difference, especially for attack rolls, save DCs, and for prepared casters, how many spells they can have.

This isn't putting DPR on a pedestal. Big damage is fun, of course, but also useless if your abilities aren't effective in the first place. I'd rather be fairly confident that I'll hit or that the creature will fail its save even if I do a handful of damage than rarely be able to nova.

Most combats last, what 5 rounds? If you average it out, you may add an extra round roughly every other encounter. But it doesn't take into account that barbarian that gets stunned or even worse dominated because they dumped wisdom. It doesn't take into account the wizard that goes down because they didn't put more points into con.

So disagree. You can't do a thorough analysis on a white room spreadsheet. People have motivated perception, they tend to see what they want to see. But it also depends on the style of game being played. One size does not fit all. So go ahead and optimize for combat. I do it sometimes myself if it fits the PC I envision and/or the DM's style. There's nothing wrong with it. Just like there's nothing wrong with building a more balanced PC.