D&D 5E Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)

[Bill Zebub]

So have we dispensed with this theory that all optimizers are just compulsive powergamers waiting for the rules to change to give them more excuses to optimize?

Or are we just waiting for the new hoops to get set up?

 

[Maxperson]

And no one is speaking about deliberately bad options either. Just about making some choices for background/story/roleplay reasons rather than for pure power.

I've shown you two characters where every single choice was for background/story/roleplay reasons, except for the racial bonuses. For playing a PC with stats that weren't great, I have to go back to 3e. I've only played 2 PCs in 5e and you've seen them both.

Elf fighter lvl 2. S:18 D:16 C: 10 I:9 W:10 CH:8. That's after the +2 dex, -2 con. He's strong with a good dex, sure, but the rest of his stats are crappy for that edition.

 

[Scott Christian]

And your initial stats considering the fact that you rolled and that, unsurprisingly, you rolled very well. By the way, I'm still waiting for any player to show me a character that he rolled and actually played despite badly rolling for stats.

Since we agree on the result, just not the definition of the powergamer, I can't really add to this. As I know that my perspective is in the minority when it comes to making characters.

But I did want to say that my favorite character, that I played for years in 2e, had a 13 as his best attribute.

PS - I did list two characters, wood elf barbarian and half-orc mage that I have played (for extended periods; one approximately 9 months the other over a year). But, I gave them as examples of the other choices during character creation that fall out of focus, yet can lead to unexpected joy and discovery. Later, I also asked for people to list characters, because quite frankly, it is all hypothesizing until there is some experience.

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t think we can judge intent. What we can say is that whatever your motivations you picked a race and class combo that was very optimized.

There wasn't any choice. Tasha's wasn't out yet and before that only elves can be Bladesingers.

IMO. If you really picked regardless of optimization then you’d end up with just as many or maybe even more characters whose race and class don’t align as you do with ones that do. I don’t know if that’s true of you or not but I think it’s plausible that many people that don’t go out of their way to optimize end up with races that complement their classes to a greater proportion than they end up with races that don’t. That tells me there’s more going on - maybe even subconsciously - than those people realize when they are explaining their actions.

Unfortunately, I only have two 5e characters. I've only played twice since I DM most of the time.

 

[Lyxen]

I just didn't like the image of big weapons sticking out while she was sneaking around and climbing walls. She has more daggers for throwing, instead of a short bow, for the same reason. Even though a short bow is superior in every way.

That's nice and a good example, and I believe that you can repent and be saved from the evils of powergaming, my son.

And yes, maybe if you find a DM that lets you use Floating ASIs, you will use them to create a character that is interesting for its race/class potential in terms of background/story/roleplay rather than from a purely powergamey perspective. That being said, I know that I'm not the only non-powergamer in the world, I've gamed on 4 different continents and found people that enjoyed my style of playing on each of them, so...

It's just that, in the end, few of them are found on these forums, so hopefully I've found another one.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Since we agree on the result, just not the definition of the powergamer, I can't really add to this. As I know that my perspective is in the minority when it comes to making characters.

But I did want to say that my favorite character, that I played for years in 2e, had a 13 as his best attribute.

PS - I did list two characters, wood elf barbarian and half-orc mage that I have played (for extended periods; one approximately 9 months the other over a year). But, I gave them as examples of the other choices during character creation that fall out of focus, yet can lead to unexpected joy and discovery. Later, I also asked for people to list characters, because quite frankly, it is all hypothesizing until there is some experience.

Confession: my most beloved character ever was an elf fighter/magic-user with 18/33 strength and another 18 somewhere, too. I didn't make him: I asked an older kid who actually owned the books to make me my first character and that's what he gave me. Started me down the long road to powergaming hell, I guess. ("First one's free, kid.")

P.S. I named my first sailboat after that character.

 

[Lyxen]

Since we agree on the result, just not the definition of the powergamer, I can't really add to this. As I know that my perspective is in the minority when it comes to making characters.

But I did want to say that my favorite character, that I played for years in 2e, had a 13 as his best attribute.

PS - I did list two characters, wood elf barbarian and half-orc mage that I have played (for extended periods; one approximately 9 months the other over a year). But, I gave them as examples of the other choices during character creation that fall out of focus, yet can lead to unexpected joy and discovery. Later, I also asked for people to list characters, because quite frankly, it is all hypothesizing until there is some experience.

But then, just as I do, you don't really count since you're not really arguing in favor of the powergaming choices, are you ?

 

[Lyxen]

Confession: my most beloved character ever was an elf fighter/magic-user with 18/33 strength and another 18 somewhere, too. I didn't make him: I asked an older kid who actually owned the books to make me my first character and that's what he gave me. Started me down the long road to powergaming hell, I guess. ("First one's free, kid.")

And you would not believe the stats of my first and most beloved character, or my most powerful one either, as it was AD&D and I have a powergamer's past as well.

Or actually my most powerful 3e one either.

But then I also had my "woodcutter in the woods" period, in which we played mostly at lvl 0 with characters whose stats were 12 at best.

 

[Yaarel]

That I agree with completely. Which is, again, why powergaming is ultimately pointless. The problem is that powergamers do not understand it. They think the DM has to be fair and abide by rules about encounter difficulty, that he has to respect the technical power of the characters. He does not, as a DM my ultimate aim is for the players to be happy about the game and the story told, and at our tables it has, in the end, little to do with technical power, but a lot to do about roleplaying, thinking as your character and finding solution as your character, not about using a technical power.

And getting a +1 is not going to get you out or make you win unwinnable encounters. It's only actually going to annoy the other players as you want to show it off over the world and over them, and as you want to set up situations in which you think you will win using your ultimate power combo. I've seen it many times, powergamers inciting fights or creating situations in which they think that they will shine.

But that only works in a technical game. Again, there is nothing wrong with this, if all the players at the table want to play a power game of fighting (and of course this does not prevent roleplaying to happen too), it's perfect for that table.

But at mixed tables, and even more at tables like ours where story matters more, that behaviour will at best annoy other players whose plans and roleplay are torpedoed by the need to take technical action, and at worst will get the powergamer and possibly the rest of the party in bad trouble.

Typical examples in two of our major campaigns these days. In the Avernus that I'm running as a sandbox, all the adversaries are more powerful than the PCs by far (these are devils and other fiends, and in hell), so they are slowly and bit by bit building a small army of (untrustworthy, but it's all the more fun that way) allies. Going for any of the objectives that they have straight on thinking "the DM will balance the encounter difficulty to make it barely winnable because we are brilliant players with powerful characters" will not work. And the same in our Odyssey of the Dragonlords campaign, where our adversaries are gods, dragons and titans, only this time our allies are more trustworthy.



It also makes the players and their character think twice about taking the combat option (because they can't be sure that they can win, and I use the Worf effect a lot as a warning), but really rewards them if they take it well (by making the fight a cakewalk if they have investigated how to win it painlessly).

Heh, you make it sound so heavyhanded, but I basically agree. It is the story that matters. I always adjudicate challenges narratively, based on the given scenario in the story scene. I only resort to mechanics when the story itself could go either way. Occasional too-powerful encounters encourage players to think out of the box.

We take turns DM-ing. So all of us have better sense of what helps the DM enjoy the game. Re powergamers, we all build effective characters, and offer to assist each other in building a character concept. I optimize to best express thematics and flavor. I have never seen someone play a convoluted "theoretical build" for extreme damage. This kind of optimization is a sport in itself, like puzzle solving. I have never seen one used for roleplay. But we have mechanically solid characters. As long as players are using their mechanical prowess to assist, rescue, and coordinate with fellow team members, it is all in good fun.

 

[LadyElect]

I don’t know if that’s true of you or not but I think it’s plausible that many people that don’t go out of their way to optimize end up with races that complement their classes to a greater proportion than they end up with races that don’t. That tells me there’s more going on - maybe even subconsciously - than those people realize when they are explaining their actions.

I think lore depiction and media influence plays a big role here. Even if stats were somehow hidden, something like the aforementioned Firbolg Classes block in VGM starting with "Most firbolgs are druids, rangers, or fighters" would sway the overall percentage of play simply because of the way it's written in. Same with the pregenerated sheets WotC offers. I imagine a significant portion of players that make up these combination percentages either rely on those depictions and resources due to their experience level or simply enjoy leaning into the provided settings.

But I agree and also don't really follow this thread of intent scrutinizing since the end road seems to hit either "ok, great" or "I don't believe you" and stop there.