D&D 5E (2014) Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)

[Maxperson]

Especially when considering the relative ease of pushing max if one so desires

Hey!

 

[Yaarel]

Consider the two four-ability arrays that feel about equally appealing.

+3, +2, +1, +0

+2, +2, +2, +2



Say, arbitrarily, a +2 is worth 3 points. When four times, the second array is worth 12 points.

Looking at the first array, say, the +0 is worth zero points, and the +1 is worth 1 point. Where the array is worth 12 points, the +3 by itself is worth 8 points.

The costs might need some fine tuning but is illustrative enough for the purpose here. Notice how valuable the +3 is. Its cost is worth eight times the cost of a +1 and over twice the cost of a +2.



Consider what the equivalent pointbuy costs should look like for equivalent scores.

Score (Cost)
10 (0 points)
11 (1 point)
12 (2 points)
13 (4 points) (maybe 3 points because of the odd score)
14 (6 points)
15 (11 points) (maybe 9 points because of the odd score)
16 (16 points)



The difference in value between score 16 and a score 15 is enormous. This is a reason why so many players care about getting that 16.

The difference is so great the game balances more clearly when removing race ability scores completely, and requiring one accurate pointbuy for everything.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it's not. Playing casually is just that, whereas powergaming is putting special effort into making a selfish difference in the game.

Note that I have the same difficulty with heavy roleplayers being wangrods and creating characters that will make it difficult for the party because of the role or personality chosen. However, in my long experience, these are not only much more seldom encountered, but they are also easier to shut off, whereas when you try to do this with a powergamer, you usually get a mix of ruleslawyering and entitlement that can take hours...

I'm joking here, but all the above is unfortunately very true, from probably thousands of games.

My only real disagreement with the above is the idea that powergaming = selfishness. There are entire groups(not uncommon) out there where all the players and the DM like powergaming and it's fun for all. The only problem comes in when you have a real powergamer mixed in with a group of non-powergamers AND someone in the rest of the group cares about the power differential. If no one cares about the power difference, and I've been in groups like that, there's no issue.

You are partially right, it comes with not playing with like-minded people. But partially only, again I've had much more trouble with powergamers than with casuals, especially because the latter are usually humble about their overall attitude.

For me personally it's been more of a mixed bag, but still leaning towards powergamers being more of a problem. I've encountered, and we've seen it from people in this very thread, those who think that the DM should do nothing that could maybe, might, possibly sometimes stop them from whatever RP they wish.

And all the better for you if you can consistently play with only like-minded players. However, it's not always possible when playing with friends, even old-time ones who know each other by heart.

Yep. I have one powergamer in my group of friends, however, since we are all friends when I make a ruling that doesn't go his way, he accepts it and we just move on. Being friends helps mitigate the powergamer ruling issue.

 

[Maxperson]

People who would play a Tortle caster because of, and only because of, new synergies allowed by Tasha's were going to pick something hyper-optimized anyway. It's not like that option is going to turn people into powergamers.

I mean, isn't simply having a greater variety of powergamer builds a desirable outcome? Aren't you sick of seeing Vengeance Paladins with GWM and Polearm Mastery, SorLocks, etc.?

They could give me a +6, +3 floating ASI at first level and I still wouldn't play a tortle. Bleh!

 

[Yaarel]

I am glad 5e is floating the ability scores. It creates a more balanced game by allowing the players to apply the bonuses more consistently, making the the math between characters more equal.

Most importantly, I have experienced the joy that floating ability improvements bring to player roleplay by supporting diverse character concepts, and to DM worldbuilding.

The fluidity of each race helps avoid unfortunate reallife memes. There will be members of each race who exhibit exceptional Intelligence in some way. And so on. If reallife racist stereotypes unintentionally show up, they become contradicted by the diversity of the D&D race. Every culture has strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I’ve had a pre-Tasha’s Tortle Druid on a character sheet for a while now, hoping for a campaign he fits into. His shield is made from a piece of giant lobster claw.

 

[Umbran]

Say, arbitrarily...

And that's where this analysis falls apart. You cannot construct an arbitrary cost system, and then at the end say, "Look how valuable that is!" You made up the system that dictated its value!

 

[Chaosmancer]

I agree, I read them (not all of them, but the best ones) because it's interesting to see what people think about classes, and sometimes they have interesting ideas. However, my point about the intention comes from the DDB forums, where when people ask for advice about their character builds, all the answers are along the lines of the guides, choosing the race and class for maximum power and then floating the ASI where it benefits the class.

So people aska bout build advice, and they get build advice, but it is the wrong kind of advice so you want to protest Floating ASIs? I'll let you in on a secret, floating ASIs or not, you won't change the fact that when people ask for advice, they get it.

And sure, it would be great to see people giving more varied advice, but again, that has nothing to do with floating ASIs. Take them or leave them, and you will not change that. With them though, you might get more varied advice.

While I agree that it does not say a lot about what the majority will do, with that kind of "help" going on, and all the people reading this advice, what do you think will happen ? Especially when, on top of this, there is that huge powergaming community that sniffs and derides all characters that have not been created optimally, the player obviously being a moron ?

What do I think will happen when people ask for advice and then get it? They will likely follow the advice they got, if they like it.

I mean, what do you want people to do? Do you want people to suggest that the player asking how to build the best wizard they can tell them to take a 10 strength and be a fist wizard who casts no spells? People ask questions, they get answers to those questions. If you don't like the answers they are getting, then give them different ones. And if people mock and deride you for giving less powerful but more fun advice, tell them "Yeah, it is less powerful, but I found this to be a lot more fun and it is powerful enough to get by"

Maybe the other person will agree with you, maybe not, but your issues have nothing to do with Floating ASIs.

Moreover, honestly, I'm not too concerned about what is happening with the community in general, everyone can play the game that they want. It's just that I am really annoyed by the powergaming people above, for one, and I like to remind them that floating ASIs are an option (for some reason that infuriates them). As for our tables, on the other hand, I KNOW what the powergamers at our tables would do, because we have discussed it and, being reasonable people who understand the benefits of limiting the power gap (as well as long term fans of the racial ASIs that they, like me, grew up with), they agreed not to implement the Floating ASIs.

See, this is your problem right here. And I do mean that it is a problem.

You are looking at this as Binary. You've told people that want FLoating ASIs that it is optional, which is clearly a sign that you think they shouldn't do it. And you also have made the claim that "reasonable people" don't want it either.

But, I'm a reasonable person. I'm not some monstrous player who will mock you for your build, or scream down a new player for doing something that isn't mechanically optimal. And I like Floating ASIs. They open options for me that weren't open before. And no matter how much I ask, no one has ever been able to tell me a single Floating ASI race/class combo that is markedly more powerful than what was already available. You want to limit the power gap? That is exactly what Floating ASIs do. They limit the Power Gap between the best and the rest. The top level of power are still where they are.

However, since you refuse to imagine that anyone who disagress with you is anything except dishonest and toxic to the game, you are fighting back against a tool that can help you.

So I'm just telling you simple facts:

• Floating ASIs are an option, just like playing on a grid, and we don't use either at our tables.
• The powergamers that I know personally would definitively use Floating ASIs to create more powerful characters.
• All the advice that powergamers on the boards provide are about using Floating ASIs to create more powerful characters.

After that, I honestly am not more pig-headed than people insisting that Floating ASIs are gifts from the light above and that I'm stupid for not accepting their great benefits, and this, by the way, without ever telling me exactly what these benefits are, and certainly not putting in practice benefits other than POWAAAH !

What more powerful characters? Ask them to give you a list, because I've never seem a Floating ASI build that I couldn't match or exceed with Static ASI build. And of course optimizers are giving advice about optimizing characters. That's what they do. They were giving advice on how to optimize Static ASIs too, so by your logic those are powergaming as well.

We've said the benefits. It allows character concepts that don't fee, hampered by being behind the curve. Instead of playing a Tiefling warlock who gets +3 attack, damage, spell DC and every social skill, I can play an and get those same starting values, and I can play the story of them being in a marriage arranged by their Fey Godmother to marry into a Faerie Noblehouse.

Instead of playing the Goliath Barbarian whose getting +3 attack and damage, I can play the Goliath Druid, who speaks for the Mountain and seeks to find a lost relic.

Sure, you'll tell me I could play those characters anyways, if I just gave up on that +3 then I could do anything and not worry about it. But, no, I can't. If I could I would have done that the last thousand times someone talked down to me about how I'm just wrong. But, surprisingly, my own expeirences at my own games, struggling to succeed with characters who have that +3 tell me that I'd probably have a worse time of it with only a +2.

And I'm sure you'll tell me that challenge is an illusion, and that my DM would certainly start pulling their punches if I made weaker characters. But no, first of all, they wouldn't. And second of all, they only might if everyone else was making an non-archetypical character. But if they are all making archetypical characters, then I'm the one left playing the oddball and struggling. For no other reason than because some people don't like it when you play against type and are effective at it (because real players succeed anyways or some nonsense) and others like you are arguing that if I want to be on even footing I must be a powergamer who derides others and wants to force them to make the choices I like instead of the ones that they like, so I should definetly not be allowed to make the choice I like and be forced to make the choice you like.

That's nice, I hope that you do realize that I don't even know if you are a powergamer or not ?

Why would that matter. You asked for a non-powergaming Tasha's build that is actually being played. I gave that to you. Does my build somehow change if you think I'm a powergamer? Does that mean my race or numbers are somehow a code?

I do, and I have met a number of non-powergamers as well along my long years playing.

And this is binary thinking. Let me ask you this. You mentioned Treantmonk. Personally, I think the guy is way off base, but you seem to think he's pretty smart. And he is certainly a powergamer.

Whose powergaming guide did he read? Whose build is he following? Because, you keep saying that all powergamers just parrot the words of the guides, that anyone who just builds a character without referencing a guide is not a powergamer, so he must be reading someone's guide and using that to parrot his characters, right?

 

[Chaosmancer]

The thing is that the default version of the rules is just a piece of paper, it's not a game and it's even less an actual gaming session, these can only exist when a dungeon master has appropriated the rules and is running the game, which implies him making choices about character generation methods if he feels like it, like every other aspect of the game, it's within his rights.

There is also no game if the players leave, just someone sitting there rattling dice. Even if you believe you have the power to force players to act like you want, there is no value in doing so. And so I will tell players every time, it is your right to use the Standard Array. If you want to use it and the DM refuses, then that should be that. Because how you generate your stats shouldn't matter.

After that, it's true that rolling and the standard array are in the core rules as alternatives, so a DM, especially a beginning one looking for simple choices is likely to choose that.

What I think is more significant to this discussion, however, is that this points in your direction below as being the standard used by the designers in terms of quantifying standard character powers, and this in turn influences all the computation made about CRs, encounters strengths, etc. See below.

Yeah, of course it is. You can't roll new stats every time you want to test something, you have to have a standard array of numbers, just as a matter of fact for game design. So... why wouldn't they use the standard array as the standard array?

This, however, I'm in complete disagreement with. It is every DM's right to enforce rules about character creation, their power, how they are generated, which races and classes are available for play, and ultimately whether any character is allowed to adventure in his world.

Thank the gods, 5e has moved away from the player-centric atrocity that was 3e, which gave players the impression that they had "rights". If the DM is a good one, he will of course try to make his players happy, but it is his right to block attempts to derail the whole campaign for the whole group by players who think that they have "rights" to do as they please.

My apologies in advance if this is not what it means, bu words like player "rights", "agency" etc. have ruined many many games for DMs, when at the same time players (often the same) weep for not finding DMs...

If me using a longsword as a Paladin, or using the Standard array instead of rolling ruins your game because you weren't able to control every aspect of the character's design, then I'm not sorry.

But Maxperson was very clear. He doesn't allow the standard array because he finds it boring. I don't see how him finding my character boring matters in the slightest. I don't care if my stat generation method is boring to you, I'm not breaking the game, and if you are obsessing over the fact that used a standard array instead of looking at my actual character, then that is a you problem.

There are places that the DM can overstep. And this is one of them.

On this point, however, I fully agree, it is the basis for computation in the system, so much so that powergamers who create more powerful characters than this are then the first one to complain that the encounter system is broken.

It does not mean that characters have to be created like this, and especially not using specific method, but it is the standard that drove the computations of the rest of the system.

At least one person is agreeing.

 

[Malmuria]

It would seem that PHB options + floating ASI is a much lower power level than keeping racial ASI but allowing all of the races and subclasses from the various supplements, especially Tasha's. So if we are talking, say, about a 5.5e PHB, floating ASI would not be the thing that introduces power creep.

Anyway, my players don't read the rulebooks let along online guides, forget most of their abilities, and end up defaulting to doing the same 2 or 3 things in combat over and over again. If anything fights that should be of a moderate difficulty end up being very difficult because no one knows what they're doing. . So, as with all things, ymmv.