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

[abirdcall]

If we're defining getting a certain ability score to a certain number, than yes, floating ASIs is about powergaming, because setting ability scores is powergaming.

If we're defining powergaming as only building the character for power, than floating ASIs can definitely be used for other things, such as playing characters who don't follow standard tropes without being weakened for it.

The funny thing about the floating ASIs is that it eliminates the ability to play against type.

There is no longer an option to not follow standard tropes because those tropes have been destroyed by the rule.

 

[clearstream]

One believes Floating aids in their creativity. Fine.

Floating ASIs aid the creativity of some players.

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.

No problem. I'm not sure how to make my meaning clear for you. It's not about putting words in your mouth: more trying to understand what you are saying and reconcile that with what others are saying.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Thats a general failure of D&D. There was some hope in 3E that out of combat gameplay becomes more important with having a much better support for out of combat skills, but that hope got squashed by 4E and especially 5Es "back to the (wargame) roots" approach and removing most mechanics not directly related to combat.

4e did its level best with skill challenges and rituals. It just never fully committed to fleshing either out.

 

[abirdcall]

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.

Combat in 5e is designed to last 2-4 rounds with an average of 3.

Monsters are assumed to survive for 3 rounds in their design. For example, if a monster has an ability to deal 20 damage to an average of 3 characters once they are killed, their DPR goes up by 20 per round for CR calculation. 20 per round for 3 rounds is the 60 damage they deal on death.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The funny thing about the floating ASIs is that it eliminates the ability to play against type.

There is no longer an option to not follow standard tropes because those tropes have been destroyed by the rule.

Hard disagree: no one thinks Gimli is an elf, or that all elves are like Gimli, or that if you play Gimli and call him an elf you're playing a perfectly normal elf.

The idea that the entire concept of an elf in popular imagination is "+2 dex" is just absurd to me.

Which is probably why I have never once seen anyone look at floating modifiers and suddenly decide that all lore, history, and common language no longer apply. Elves are still elves without +2 dex.

 

[Scribe]

Which is probably why I have never once seen anyone look at floating modifiers and suddenly decide that all lore, history, and common language no longer apply.

No, for that they had to.

Generalize Height and Weight to 'Human Like.'
Declare canon void.
Specify that language isn't tied to race.

Elf (and everything else) is a few special rules. Coming, to a new Monster book replacing Volos and MtoF, soon.

 

[Oofta]

Combat in 5e is designed to last 2-4 rounds with an average of 3.

Monsters are assumed to survive for 3 rounds in their design. For example, if a monster has an ability to deal 20 damage to an average of 3 characters once they are killed, their DPR goes up by 20 per round for CR calculation. 20 per round for 3 rounds is the 60 damage they deal on death.

Then it's even less likely that a 14 vs 16 will matter. Oh, that and many of my combats may last longer ... or maybe I just don't pay attention.

In any case, I think a 5% difference is so small it will rarely matter or be noticed. Other people disagree. Without a complex combat simulator that doesn't oversimplify things like spreadsheets tend to we'll never have a concrete answer, if that's even possible. Analysis is frequently way off base. Not that it's proof of much, I've been playing Solasta (D&D video game) that tells you statistics when you save a PC at the end of a module. According to a guide's spreadsheets, the paladin in awesome, the fighter is crap. My games? The two weapon champion fighter is second only to the wizard in overall damage and because they can second wind have just as much staying power as the paladin while doing 40% more damage.

In other words, I don't see a lot of value continuing the "I'm right you're wrong" when I don't buy the simplified analysis most people apply. Play a few hundred games with a variety of groups and track detailed statistics and we can discuss again. Until then? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. Either way I have a preference for balanced PCs most of the time.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Did you miss the bit where I said I based what I said on actual games I've played and run? I'm not theorycrafting here. Based on my personal experience, a 5% increases can be very useful.

And clearly, one size doesn't fit all. I'm not saying that people should always put the bonus in their highest stat to get a +3. I've never said that. In fact, I've said one benefit of a floating ASI is so people can bump up other stats, so you can play a charismatic fighter or a healthy wizard if you wanted to--or a strong gnome or a smart orc.

 

[jmartkdr2]

No, for that they had to.

Generalize Height and Weight to 'Human Like.'
Declare canon void.
Specify that language isn't tied to race.

Elf (and everything else) is a few special rules. Coming, to a new Monster book replacing Volos and MtoF, soon.

Even with all of that ... no. Elves are still elves, defined by the popular conception of elves. No matter how much you change the mechanics, they do not become giants or lizardfolk or hobbits.

Rules-legal or not, if you show up with Gimli and insist on calling him an elf, people will think you're weird. Tropes exist outside of DnD.

 

[Scribe]

Rules-legal or not, if you show up with Gimli and insist on calling him an elf, people will think you're weird. Tropes exist outside of DnD.

Personally, I agree, but Wizards is actively stripping out those things, and making them more generic to the point where your race is a few special rules. Its being demonstrated over and over in the newer books and UA's.