Scribe
Legend
The argument has been forwarded several times across a number of threads that not having the 'optimal' numbers is unacceptable, yes.
D&D 5E Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)
- Thread starter MGibster
- Start date
The argument has been forwarded several times across a number of threads that not having the 'optimal' numbers is unacceptable, yes.
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
That’s not the same as not viable.
Unless you are using “unviable” to mean “unacceptable to the player” I guess. As opposed to “nigh useless mechanically”, which is how I assumed we were using it.
Scribe
Legend
Well, thats the problem with definitions, or the lack thereof.
What is viable? What is optimal? What is unacceptable?
If its unacceptable to be anything but optimal, then prior to Tasha's, choice was an illusion.
I dont believe that is true however.
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I guess I don’t know we need those definitions. Prior to Tasha’s a lot of those combinations were apparently less desirable, to a lot of people, than combinations in which an ASI went into the primary attribute.
Why do we need to know what is viable and what is optimal?
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Yes and no. I can almost see the issue with optimized vs. power gaming. At least those are similar types. Even though no matter how you slice it a lit match(optimizing) is never going to be a forest fire(power gaming), even if they are both fire. However, unacceptable and unviable don't even have that meager connection. They're two completely different words with completely different meanings.
Where definitions(or the lack thereof) are an issue is when we are discussing a single word or term, such if the discussion was about power gaming only. We're all going to have different lines drawn on where power gaming starts, or even no line at all in the case of the guy who thinks a lit match(optimization) is exactly the same as a forest fire(power gaming).
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Viable might be useful in this discussion, since some people might feel that without a +2(floating or racial), their character isn't going to be viable. There has been discussion about getting rid of those bonuses and going with racial feats only.
I don't see a reason why needing to know what is optimal matters for this discussion. Optimal can be achieved whether bonuses are floating or racially set in stone.
Scribe
Legend
I guess, but there are a lot of people that find the Tasha's design less desirable.
So, yeah. We have been (not you and I but thread after thread after thread) discussing how to resolve the issue, what the source of the 'problem' is, or even if there is a problem.
Thats the point of all this really, but without definitions, its kind of a pointless exercise.
Regardless.
Tasha's is the way for any new PC option going forward, so its really a pointless exercise, but hey, people like to be understood, so we still try and communicate why we find it less desirable.
Not that anyone at Wizards will listen.
But again, one of the arguments in favor or racial ASI is that it provides an incentive for particular race-class combinations that are seen as archetypal to fantasy, especially in the context of dnd. Some players may consider that incentive necessary for a "viable" character, others may consider it optimal but not necessary, but either way it's an incentive. As I've tried to demonstrate, early editions reinforced these archetypes not primarily (or at all) through ability score modifications but through outright race-class restrictions.
If you are arguing that it is racial ASI does not incentivize particular race-class combinations, then the design purpose of racial ASI decreases even further.
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I thought the issue is that people would like to both play and see other people play non-standard race combinations more frequently, but the reason this doesn't happen is because they value the ASI more than the diversity. But they would like to be able to do both.
I’m picturing this conversation:
“You don’t need a +3”
"Yeah, but I want it more than I want to play a gnome."
"Are you saying a gnome fighter with 15 strength isn't viable?"
"No, 15 is perfectly viable, but I want my fighter to have 16 strength more than I want it to be a gnome"
"Do you think 16 strength is optimal?"
"I know a +1 on my attack rolls and damage does more for fighting that a +2 Int plus the other gnome abilities"
"Is this just because Billy has a 16 in his primary attribute?"
"No, it's because +3 is obviously better than +2"
"Are you sure you're not hiding some kind of deep-seated insecurity complex that manifests as a need to have a 16?"
"Yup, pretty sure."
In other words, it feels like the people in favor of racial ASIs keep trying to define these terms in order to persuade the floating ASI people that they don't need the 16, that a 15 is still viable, etc. etc. etc. But it's not about the absolute mechanical value of a 15 or a 16 or a 17, it's about the perceived relative value of the +1 modifier, compared to the benefits of choosing some race with a non-primary ASI.
What I further don't get is that it seems like that sort of thinking is the exact design point of having a racial ASI. The player is meant to look at the gnome description and mechanics and realize that gnomes are better for wizards and dwarves are better for fighters, thus leading either to a) characters who embody classic dnd archetypes or b) characters that are conspicuously against type. So it's a bit of a bait-and-switch to say 'we need racial ASI so that the game has clear archetypes' and then to call players who go ahead and bite on that small incentive 'powergamers.'
Similar Threads
