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

[Bill Zebub]

These guides exist for a reason

I think that reason is that previous iterations of the game were complex enough that the guides were helpful, and now there's a tradition.

I seriously wonder how many players read them, and suspect (although haven't tried to demonstrate) that it's a tiny fraction of the number of people on D&D Beyond, which is where we get our data about race:class choices.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And we really want to claim the game is balanced tightly?

Who is claiming that? Not I. The game isn't remotely balanced.

I love playing monks, even though the theorycrafters keep whining about how weak they are.

 

[Lyxen]

Well, I haven't started any new campaigns since Tasha's, so you're only going to see either characters that have race/class ASI synergy, or lots and lots (and lots) of variant humans.

Why am I not surprised...

And again, it's not a criticism, if that is what you enjoy playing, it's absolutely 100% fine.

And still, I hope that you understand why I want to limit the discrepancies that this kind of "optimised" play creates with my mess technically minded players.

But, as I just posted above, I've really wanted to play a Tiefling monk. A half-orc paladin is another I've wanted to play.

Although, really, I could make up anything I wanted whether or not it's true, so I'm not sure this line of reasoning leads to anything productive. And, in any event, the virulence of your dislike of powergaming makes me suspect I'm pushing a stone uphill here.

No, it's good that you are honest, but you see, I have had this conversation many times and all the people who told me stories of that kind to prove that they could make non-optimised roleplaying choices actually showed me characters that had never seen play...

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, wait...what? Did I not read Tasha's carefully? How do you get an 18?

The custom lineage allows +2 and a feat. The feat can get you a third plus in the same stat.

 

[Scribe]

Who is claiming that? Not I. The game isn't remotely balanced.

I love playing monks, even though the theorycrafters keep whining about how weak they are.

You know, I enjoy Monk too. /shrug

As to the balance comment, that thread runs throughout the discussion.

'Without floating I cannot get X' well sure, but it's not needed so...and around we go.

 

[Lyxen]

No. A powergamer would do that. A simple optimizer would not. I have on occasion done just as I said, so that itself is proof that you are wrong. Optimization is a scale which only at the high end is powergaming.

Then show me some of your characters, that have actually seen play. Call me St Thomas if you want...

Right. I'm talking about a limited optimizer, not a powergamer.

Wouldn't matter. I can in fact pick a race with non-optimal racial abilities(the other 90% of races) and still put my ASI in the optimal stat. Optimizing without powergaming.

Again, show me some characters.

 

[Lyxen]

Who is claiming that? Not I. The game isn't remotely balanced.

Tsss... It's not as balanced as 4e, and the designers have not designed it with perfect balance in mind, that is true. But saying that it's not even remotely balanced is much, much farther from the truth.

I love playing monks, even though the theorycrafters keep whining about how weak they are.

Then if you enjoy them already, why do you need more power on them ?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Who is claiming that? Not I. The game isn't remotely balanced.

I love playing monks, even though the theorycrafters keep whining about how weak they are.

It's just that you keep making claims that seem contradictory or at least not applying the same logic consistently. Like if you're fine with playing monk even though this makes your character not as powerful as they could be, why are you not similarly fine with playing a dwarf rogue with dex 15?

 

[Malmuria]

The most difficult part through the debate, no matter how many times I see it, is one side's utter lack and refusal to say why they want floating ASIs instead of fixed ASIs.

It's all the dissembling which makes things worse IMHO, and the reverse finger pointing rather than admitting the simple truth, which in turn makes it much easier to run games with the right spirit for the right group.

What I am not fine with is the dismantling of a systematic set of rules, that for many helped create 5e's theme, motif, flavor, etc. for the D&D races (among other things), and then turning around and arguing against people who wanted to keep the rule in place. All while refusing to admit the rule change, in the end, is really about a +1.

Wow, well this exchange is certainly condescending! There have been innumerable and varied reasons given for why people want floating ASI (or, indeed, no ASI), including discussion of what alternative features/options might be given to the race selection to make it feel more distinctive. I've tried to quote from the history of the game, going back to OD&D, to show the different ways ability score modifications have been used--or not used--for those particular game designs. Other people have discussed what they enjoy about character creation in 5e. So I don't know why you would assume all of the reasons given and discussed are just "dissembling" for the sake of a "+1". And it suggests that any further discussion or argumentation would similarly be dismissed as a smokescreen for wanting a +1.

What's been most surprising to me about this whole discussion is the defense of 5e as a system. I think it's interesting to discuss what 5e does well, but also what it does not do well, and along the way compare it to the design of other editions and games. Part of what is distinctive about dnd is that it was a collectively authored game, with real innovations in design starting out as just house rules or alternative systems. Discussions like this are just part of that always evolving process of modifying and experimenting.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Why am I not surprised...

And again, it's not a criticism, if that is what you enjoy playing, it's absolutely 100% fine.

And still, I hope that you understand why I want to limit the discrepancies that this kind of "optimised" play creates with my mess technically minded players.



No, it's good that you are honest, but you see, I have had this conversation many times and all the people who told me stories of that kind to prove that they could make non-optimised roleplaying choices actually showed me characters that had never seen play...

Huh? I wasn't trying to prove I make non-optimized roleplaying choices at all. I keep telling you I don't do that. I was trying to demonstrate that my desire to have floating ASIs is to combine optimization and storytelling, not to get more optimization.

Ah, I'm sorry...I just re-read the post that I was responding to, and misunderstood your request. If by "unoptimized characters" you mean ones with primary attributes below 16 those are almost non-existent. The only exceptions would be ones with two 15's, with the intent of turning them into two 16's at 4th level.

But nor are they perfectly optimized. I will occasionally read the "guides" to see if they suggest anything I haven't thought of...although honestly mostly for their analyses of spells and feats, which sometimes have complexities that don't occur to me...but certainly don't follow their optimal builds.

I'll occasionally use daggers on a rogue (because...daggers, rogue...right?) and will never ever ever use a rapier because they represent all that has been corrupted about D&D. I choose spells based on flavor, although avoid the obviously bad ones. I hate melee booming blade builds...I once tried it but re-rolled after one session because it's just silly. I play monks all the time, and we all know how weak they are, right?

So, does any of that persuade you? Or are you still convinced that all, or even most, optimizers are of the same sort, and if given floating ASIs will run to the guides and build the perfect character every time?