Yaarel
🇮🇱 🇺🇦 He-Mage
What about 8+2d4? If I recall correctly, those results looked tolerably balanced to me.
D&D 5E Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)
- Thread starter MGibster
- Start date
Scribe
Legend
10s of thousands of posts, would disagree.
I've been gaming and optimizing most of my life. You'll have to believe me, I know what I'm talking about.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
No. I want to be able to roll low, as well as high. 3-18 is the range with 4d6-L or some variation of that.
Yaarel
🇮🇱 🇺🇦 He-Mage
As you probably know, the 5e designers themselves have also said moving scores around is balanced.10s of thousands of posts, would disagree.
I've been gaming and optimizing most of my life. You'll have to believe me, I know what I'm talking about.
1. They know what they are talking about.
2. Have people to doublecheck them.
3. Have a history of disliking and removing anything too powerful.
4. They are telling the truth.
Last edited:
Yaarel
🇮🇱 🇺🇦 He-Mage
Well, if I recall correctly, you never cared about balance. Heh, the static race ability improvement was just to coerce stereotypes.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
More accurately, I don't care as much about it as many do. I thought 3e was too unbalanced. I think 5e is too balanced. They bounded it a bit too much. I'd have loved a game right in the middle of the two editions balance wise.
And there's no coercion going on at all. Nobody is being forced or threatened in order to get them to do anything.
Yaarel
🇮🇱 🇺🇦 He-Mage
As a DM, I occasionally throw in an encounter that is way too easy, so the players can enjoy the cakewalk, ... also an encounter that is way too hard that they probably need to run away from.
It helps with verisimilitude.
Lyxen
Great Old One
Because it's never only about the stat only, it's about the combination of race (and its racial powers), class and stats. And again, I need no more proof that all the guides out there who explain to you how certain combinations are technically more powerful than others, all colour coded and who explain that some combination were powerful when there were Racial ASIs, but how new ones have become even more powerful if the optional Floating ASIs are allowed.
And because there are now even more combinations, it's even harder for casual players to have a look at everything (assuming that they want to) it will widen the power gap even more between casual players and powergamers, something that we don't want at our tables.
I have given many examples of the negative effects of the power gap, and there is absolutely zero reason to increase that power gap (and again, the guides clearly demonstrate that the potential power gap has increased if you allow Floating ASIs).
Come on, it's not that hard to understand. Despite all the best intentions displayed by some members of this board that they will only use the floating ASIs to play the previously powerful combinations and not seek more power, no one has yet presented a character that has been created and played that way. It's not going to happen, if you dangle candy in front of a child, he will take it, just as any optimiser/powergamer will take another advantage if you dangle it in front of their eyes.
clearstream
(He, Him)
I feel like the powergamer argument isn't worth engaging with. If the mechanical effect of ASIs matters, then it matters equally whether floating or fixed. To pretend anything else is disingenuous and exhausting. As has been reiterated, if someone wants to play a low strength halfling fighter, they can in either case.
Another argument that isn't worth engaging with is the demographics one. DnD chargen is for individual characters. If it comes to the background demographic, a narrative snippet such as "Goliaths are typically powerfully built" is enough. [EDIT In fact, when one authors racial features and then thinks about those as applying to nearly every member of that race, you notice some of the problems and opportunities around all that! For instance if every high elf has weapon proficiencies and a wizard cantrip.]
The mistake is to suppose you will change anyone's mind at this point. What I'd like to understand most is what - if anything - we've learned from this thread? Is the takeaway that everyone's positions prior to posting continue as they were? If so, the OP's was the main post worth reading. Or has something been said that offers more than that? (I have not read every page!)
Lyxen
Great Old One
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).
Similar Threads
