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

[FrogReaver]

Why on earth would monsters and foes stop having expectations? It is a natural and logical thing that intelligent creatures will make judgments made on the history and habits of the known races. Halflings are poor fighters, dwarves are bad wizards, elves... are elves and bards should all be staked through the heart ( but that is an other topic.)

This is what fixed ASI make for the players. A chance to metagame by playing the unexpected. Because at some point, the stereotypes are reinforced by the racial ASI and thus monsters and foes will have the same expectations.

You jest with my RP, but I do RP monsters and foes with their basic interpretations and alignments. And I sometimes surprise my players with.... an unexpected build for a monsters. "But (insert any foe) are not supposed to that!" is a sentence I often hear at my table. Because even if the vast majority of my villainous creatures are in the MM, I can work with my players expectations too. This is exactly what role playing is about.

Now with generic RPG where you build what you want, there are no particular expectations as the lore does not provide any. GURPS, to mention one, is a really good system but it is generic and every race can do anything equally well. So intelligent foes will behave differently with no special expectations because there aren't any to begin with. D&D I unique in that it's lore is (so far) supported by mechanical rules (racial ASI and powers/skills) that many other non D$D related RPGs do not have.

Instead of taking one aspect of a game or post, try to look at it in its totality. This will let you understand a lot more my point of view as I do not focus only on one part of the game but to all its related part. Racial lore is as much important as the mechanical aspects of it that reinforced each other. Thus, this creates expectations and assumptions in both players and monsters about what the general adventurer of each race can usually do.

I think I'd add that playing against type for many players is more than about playing against racial lore type. What many players seem to care about is playing against mechanical type via having their race become a class it is actually mechanically inferior at. Floating ASI's don't allow this kind of playing against type. That's because Floating ASI's instead highlight a races members individuality. That is they allow you to play the same weak halfling as a Fighter but that weak halfling isn't in the same context anymore. Any PC created halfling could have been stronger. Implying PC halflings aren't mechanically inferior at fighting anymore. That's why it's said one can't play against type with Floating ASI's

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Halflings make good Fighters, they just go Rapier and Medium Armor instead of Longsword and Heavy Armor. They can't go with heavy weapons due to small size, but getting +2 STR instead wouldn't change that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Halflings make good Fighters, they just go Rapier and Medium Armor instead of Longsword and Heavy Armor. They can't go with heavy weapons due to small size, but getting +2 STR instead wouldn't change that.

maybe a different example would have better. But if your going to comment could you at least comment on the substance of the post?

 

[Helldritch]

I think an issue is that, since the Commoner statblock is so pathetically weak, it's very trivial to surpass the average of a race as long as you're not dumping that stat.

A Barbarian will probably put the 13 of the Standard Array into Dex, so, if he's an Orc, Goliath or Dwarf, he'll already be more dexterous than an average Elf. When talking about "though" races, the con bonus can't compare to just having the full hit die at level one like the PCs do, so even a Gnome Wizard with 10 Con will have more HP than an average Dwarf, their +2 can't offset that.

Agreed. But take into account the legends of each races, which should be known by many ( if only to mock them). Their legendary heroes will be known for the strength of said race. Dwarven heroes are usually fighters. It would be a well known fact amongst all intelligent races/monsters. Lore in D&D is long and does not limits itself to 5ed. Take the war between the Kobold and Gnomish pantheon. Kukutulmak (or something close to that name) was emprisonned by Garl Glittergold into and endless magical labyrinth. This fact is both well know by kobolds and gnomes. This says a lot about what kind of classes gnomes might be good at.

With this in mind, it is not far off to assume a minimal degree of knowledge about the major races legends and heroes and expect members of that race to try to emulate their heroes. And if in recent memory, a member of that race made heroic deeds while emulating said race's heroes, then the stereotype is reinforced tenfold. Thus making an underdog (a halfling barb) can work and be expected to surprise your opponents.

Yes this could be considered meta gaming but is it really so? I believe it is playing the world and making it believable and much more alive and less static. It shows the players that something happens outside of their group. The world is much one alive this way.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

maybe a different example would have better. But if your going to comment could you at least comment on the substance of the post?

Not sure what you mean by that. Just pointing out that Halflings being good Fighters isn't really against type, at least mechanics-wise (lore-wise, it probably is), their ASIs do fine for being a Fighter, they miss out on the GWM/PAM stuff, but they can always go SS/Crossbow-Expert instead.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not sure what you mean by that. Just pointing out that Halflings being good Fighters isn't really against type, at least mechanics-wise (lore-wise, it probably is), their ASIs do fine for being a Fighter, they miss out on the GWM/PAM stuff, but they can always go SS/Crossbow-Expert instead.

That you make your sole focus about the example and you ignored any comment on the actual substantial point I was making feels bad to me.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm sorry, but you are the one mixing everything here. My point, demonstrated before, is that people who absolutely need a +1 to a stat to claim to be able to explore class/races that they could not before are doing this purely for the power of the Floating ASIs, and are therefore powergamers.

After that, it so happens that it's not the style of play that we prefer at our tables, as we have seen the detrimental consequences of that, in particular about the competition that it introduces at the table, and the power gap with more roleplay/story/casual players.

And on top of that, there are cases of jerks, which I have encountered a lot through my long roleplaying experience, with a lot of them being around powergaming/ruleslawyering.

You can draw the conclusions that you want from this, but obviously, there are as many types and degrees of powergaming as it is of extreme roleplaying, and neither is inherently more annoying than the other.

If it was just that you don't prefer it, then you wouldn't have had so many people telling you that your black and white view of the game was wrong.

Again, I'm definitely a story player. Yes, I like my characters to match the expected average power of the game. But if your whole point is to reduce the power gap then that is a good thing, and Tasha's helps you. Because that gap that you are saying exists, must exist between a tiefling cleric and a firbolg cleric already. And Tasha's helps remove that gap.

What accusations exactly ?

You have made accusations that we are power gamers. You have made accusations that we are liars. You have made accusations that we are bullies who look down on other players.

Maybe not directly, but when you frame one side with only negative traits, and then start telling people that they belong on that side, that is the only conclusion to reach.

But it is. Allowing feats is an option that no build can live without, and which is purely technical. Allowing multiclassing can be nice for roleplaying, but is mostly used by powergamers to create builds with level dip.

See below about the power gap between characters, are you advocating that it's a good thing ?

Because we can play very well without these options, completely within the spirit of the game, and limiting the power gap because it's inherently a BAD thing in our opinion.


Unfortunately no, there is the problem of temptation. If you remove it from the equation, not only will the jerks have less opportunity to be so, but people who are not jerks will be less tempted to behave like it. This is why, in society, we have laws.

Okay? Do you remove magic items as well? Those are optional. The game can work without those and the only use for them is to increase the power of the party. Removing those would also limit the power gap.

But, this is also completely beside the point. The point is that a Gnome Bard with a 16 dex, 16 Charisma is no more powerful than a Halfling Bard who has a 16 dex and 16 charisma from fixed ASIs. There is no build I have found, ever, that is more powerful with floating ASIs than the most powerful fixed ASI builds. So, stopping Floating ASIs doesn't prevent a power spike, because they don't lead to a power spike, just reference that list by the Scribe a little earlier. The biggest gains are in the second and third most powerful options, things the Power Gamers won't care about.

I do it because people advocating for Floating ASIs are behaving like it's absolutely part of the game,and you are basically a jerk for not seeing that ie has to be, that it's the only way to combat racism and by implication that you are a racist if you do not put them in place. Even in this relatively tame thread, it has been expressed that way.

Because I don't believe any of the above, I like reminding people that it's only an option and that on any official site, the Racial ASIs are the rule.

Right, and you think the people who advocate for Floating ASIs because they see it as a way to combat biological essentialism are either liars who really want to powergame or they are just too easily swayed by temptation to let the option be their default.

OR, do you think maybe, that they are honest in what they are saying, and therefor see your "but that isn't Da Rulez" as advocating for a worldview they find distasteful? Because, let us be frank, it is very very easy for talk of Racial ASIs to get into very fraught territory very quickly. See dwarven wizards having a "weakness" because they lack intelligence.

You are the one rolling out a huge rethoric here, unless you believe that it's not reasonable to limit the power gap ?

I want to limit the power gap, which is why I advocate for Tasha's and for Floating ASIs.

Satisfying because more powerful => powergamer.

No, I am not more powerful than the player who chose to play with their type instead of against it.

I feel like you make a mountain of nothing, and for the wrong reasons.

And yet, here we are. You telling me that my experience is wrong, and that I should play your way.

You are the one saying that it's wrong and bad, whereas I never said anything of the kind. I only said that because it's only about the technical power of the character, it's powergaming to make the choices that you made for power only.

And powergamers are most commonly the worst players you have, unless they have become "reasonable" and realized the truths of the game like you have. And clearly I am just wrong about my experiences, and I can't actually want to play characters for the reasons I say...

I never said that all powergamers are that bad. On the contrary, I said that there are many shades of them, but that unfortunately I have met too many that behaved badly to leave the door open to that, and that I prefer to close the power gap to avoid drift whenever I can.

And you wonder why I keep pointing out how your words and responses have painted a very clear picture of your opinion?

I've met players who were bad in a variety of ways. I tend to respond to the player, not label them with blanket terms.

Only it has not reduced the gap, not only did it create more powerful options besides the existing ones, but again, to exploit them (and the previous ones), you need to be a powergamer. Casual/roleplaying/storytelling will not care, and the power gap is actually extended by allowing powergamers more options to powergame further. Your claim is baseless.

Which more powerful options? You keep making the claim, but you keep refusing to back it up. Give me one of these absolutely powerful characters. We can even both agree to not use feats.

As for my claim, it is trivially proven.

It used to be that Elf warlocks were weaker than tielfling warlocks. That is no longer the case.
It used to be that Gnome Barbarians were weaker than Dwarf Barbarians. That gap has been greatly reduced (not eliminated though, because of the Small trait and Heavy weapons)
It used to be that Half-Orc monks were weaker than Wood Elf Monks. That is no longer the case.
It used to be that halfling wizards were weaker than human wizards. This is no longer the case.

Here are four examples of the power gap having decreased. Options are now more in-line with each other. Now, can you refute this and provide examples of the inverse?

No one asks you do to a stupid and powerless character either. But it's a totally different matter. As long as you are reasonably effective, which all race/class combination can be without powergaming if you follow the simple recommendations from the book or your DM.

And the book heavily recommends a 16 in your prime stat. Which is the only thing that Tasha's allows. So, I am reasonably effective and not powergaming by using Tasha's.

It was a 15 IIRC, because while I don't go out of the way to create a stupid character more than I go out of my way just to play the specific race that only gives me the highest bonus, despite the fact that it fits less well in the campaign.

See, this is an example of that judgement I keep seeing from you.

Who says a half-elf warlock would fit less well in the campaign? Or a human warlock? Who says you even went out of your way to play a half-elf instead of a halfling? Actually, you had to go out of your way in some manner, because Lightfoot Halflings have +1 Cha, that actually can get that 16 Cha I've been talking about. So, did you end up with a 17 Dex? Or did you roll for stats and your highest was a 14? Because it is starting to sound like you put your highest stat in your prime attribute, which you've told me makes me a power gamer, so that would make you powergaming too.

Now just be honest with yourself and admit that you also like playing a powerful character for whatever reason even if it's only personal preference. It's OK, I've been there, and there is nothing wrong or bad with it, especially if you admit it.

And here you are again, telling me that I am lying to myself about what I want. I know what I want.

And this might just be more because of the rest of the power gap than about that stat. If the other characters, in addition to the increase stats, also had optimised builds, and were played to type, then I agree that too much of a power gap is bad, which is why it's reasonable to reduce it,not by touching your two characters who I'm sure where fine, but by preventing others to twist the system around their whims.

Moreover, if you were not the only one noticing the power gap, the DM should have done something about it, seeing that that two characters were struggling. There are countless ways for a DM to do it, but it's better to do it at character creation because it sets expectations right, which is why limiting powergaming options is better.

For the Dragonborn, I was the DM, and I tried, and nothing seemed to end up working. We both noticed it and we both couldn't find a solution. I've wondered how different that game would have gone if we'd had Tashas.

Secondly, here we see the issue. You don't want to help raise up the two characters that are struggling, you want to tear down the other two characters. One of them was a half-orc dual-wielder. Any Optimizer would tell me that they were terrible, becuase Dual-Wielding is terrible and unoptimized. Another character was a goliath barbarian. Another was a Elven Arcane Archer. Again, another horrifically unoptimized choice. In the game with my gnome cleric we had a dwarven ranger/bard. And an orc barbarian/wizard. Clearly not opitmized. But, you want to reach up and prevent them from... playing archetypes? Rolling well? What exactly do you want to do to reduce the power of these characters?

So... if there weren't optimizers at the table, where is the gap you keep thinking existed? How could I have felt like I was behind, if there weren't tons of optimizers running around? I know my answer, and if you are like everyone else I've told this story towards, your will continue to be "well, it was just your perception, you weren't really struggling, you just thought you were."

The story of a +1 ? You have lost me there.

The story of the other character. For example, I have a desire to play a Wood Elf Beast Barbarian. I have ever since Tasha's came out. With Fixed ASIs though, I would look at that, and I would look at playing a human with a similiar story, or a half-orc with a similar story, or a dwarf with a similiar story and find that I can get a good story out of those characters and get the mechanics to not fall behind the curve. So, I'd pick one of them instead of my original idea.

Now with Tasha's, I just play my original idea, because I'm not losing anything by doing so.

But you are comparing effectiveness and suffering from it...

Effectiveness between myself and a better version of myself, yes.

So what is better for the group is power ? It's not about having a cleric that buffs, heals, and pulls comrades out of death's grasp every other fight ? I'm lost there.

Which is better a cleric that buffs, heals and pulls people from death, or a cleric that buffs, heals more, debuffs successfully and pulls people from death? Is having an extra spell choice to prepare that clutch spell better for the group? Yes.

Equal share of what exactly ? Damage done ?

Successful actions. Attacks and damage, spells landed, utility used, skills succeeded, damage taken, ect ect ect.

I'm looking down on absolutely no-one. I'm just telling you that, by the spirit of the game, this should not matter, but if it is what you enjoy, fine, go with it, just be conscious of the reasons, that's all.

The spirit of the game is tied to mechanical power. I'm sorry, but it is. The moment they made an 18 better than an 8, and set it up so that level 3 was better than level 1, they decided that the spirit of the game included power, to some extent.

And I'm not pushing for bleeding edge optimization. I'm pushing for letting the races be equal. An increase of equality should be better for you, not something to be feared.

Again, I don't think anyone is telling you this. On the contrary, I'm telling you that your previous character would have been extremely welcome at our tables, and that we would have taken steps, either at character creation or during the game to make sure that you don't feel like you were struggling for years because honestly, that is no way to game and to enjoy it.

Do you know what steps I would have suggested we take? Having a 16 wisdom. Using Tashas if it had existed at the time.

No one told me that a Gnome Cleric was wrong to play. What people are telling me is that it is wrong to want that 16. That I'm just powergaming, that I'm going against the spirit of the game, that the designers never intended for me to be able to do that. That if I could just let go of this obsession with power I'd have more fun. That's what people keep harping on. Everyone constantly trying to pressure me into "admitting the truth" that all I care about is +1, so they can dismiss me and Tasha's along with me as just a powergamer. You yourself have told me at least once already that I should just "be honest with myself" even though I am being honest with myself.

They prove, in particular by the discussions around them, that there are many people interested by powergaming, and by the same token, they allow DMs who care about the power gap to see where there are holes that should be plugged to avoid it at their table, because it's a bad thing that causes people like you to be miserable for years of playing their character.

So, the guides prove that power gamers exist. No one disputed that power gamers exist, so that is a moot point. And the guides allow DMs to go and remove options from the game that they feel are too powerful. Because we can't have a rising tide that lifts all ships, we just have to scuttle the ships that do too well. And that STILL doesn't say anything about floating ASIs, except that maybe the problem is you are worried too many people will have characters with 16's and then they will be on equal footing with other concepts.

No one said DMs are perfect, however, it's also not a good idea to start an arms race "behind his back" (or using options hidden in plain sight) to compete in power with other characters.

Who is going behind anyone's back or trying to compete with their fellow players? No one is doing this. No one is saying they want Tasha's because then they can start an arms race with the DM and show up Timothy's character. We are saying we want it for us.

You are clearly not responding to me here.

You said that you do not allow the standard array, because having static numbers just invites powergamers. That was the origin of that discussion point.

You are defending that by saying that the player's should listen to the DM with an open mind about the game the DM wants to run. I'm pointing out that that is a two-way street. The DM also has to listen to the players, and there is no reason to ban the standard array except that you don't like it. So, if a player wants to use it, you should listen to them with an open mind, and frankly, if you do that and don't snap at them for wanting to "power game" you would probably have little reason to refuse them. Rolling tends to create more powerful characters anyways.

Yes it does. The DM has, at the very least, prepared the campaign and is going to run it. That is a lot more than most players are doing. So I will respect the DM for his work, at the very least.

No. I will appreciate the work the DM chose to do. I'll be eager to see what they have planned. But you don't get respect just for saying you are a DM and saying you did a lot of work to prepare the campaign. And I am immediately leery of anyone demanding respect from others.

And again, did I advocate not allowing it ? No, contrary to some powergaming options, it's never been refused, it's the PLAYERS who don't want to use itm because they find it bland.

That is not what you said earlier, but this post is getting too long anyways.

Moreover, if the DM wants to run a heroic campaign, and he wants characters that look heroic even on paper, it's his absolute right to determine everything he wants during character creation. If players don't like it, their can be a discussion, and if they walk aways, too bad for everyone. But the player has not right to impose anything.

The DM can impose, but a player can't. A DM deserves automatic respect, but a player... doesn't? Oh, of course they do, a DM just deserves MORE respect. You are setting up a pedestal for the DM, and I find that tiresome at best, and toxic at worst. It is part of the reason I've actually started appreciating a friend of mine who (do to a joke that hit pretty close to home) started using the title "Dungeon Manager". Because too many DM's start taking that "master" part seriously.

I'm not sure. None of my friends and fellow players (and I've had hundreds) have ever complained about a really bad DM. As you say, some made mistakes, for various reasons, but it's just a game amongst friends, and can be discussed between adults, or even with children (I've ran game for tons of them).

As long as no one's serious about it, or take it as a competition, it's solvable.

I'm sorry for you obviously, I'm just wondering how you could get so many bad experiences in such a comparatively short time.

Like I said, you are just lucky. I'm not alone either, I just shared my stories. I've got plenty of friends who shared horror stories with me. One pair of guys I know were playing with a DM at a con, where they were engaged in a massive battle, they thought it was going to be a really fun game... until the DM basically told them they could do whatever they wanted for the next HOUR as they ran the NPCs turns.

Bad DMs exist. They are fairly common. And I've had far more of them than I have bad players.

Possibly not, but he has been doing work for you. Respect this at the very least. Not respecting work is also one way to annoy people. And one of the worst case (and I'm not saying it's your case at all) is the entitled player. These deserve no respect at all.

I will appreciate that they did work, but they chose to do that. As a DM, I know how much fun can be had during that process of making a campaign. If they chose to engage in that fun, and to run a game, then hey, I'm glad for them, but don't try and sell me on the struggles of the DM and how beleaguered they are. After your first game, you know how hard it is, and you know if you have fun doing it. And if you turn that around into demanding respect, then I'm immediately on guard, because that seems like you are trying to leverage your choice to make me fall in line.

Then we have different opinions. I respect my DMs on principle, and always thank them for running the games. Always, because I respect what they have done to prepare and run the game. It's much more difficult than being a player and just sitting at the table to be entertained. So the level of respect due is obviously not the same.

Of course I'll thank someone for running the game. I just won't respect them for it. And I certainly won't respect them more than my fellow players.

This might be a perspective thing, but I see respect in a very different light than common courtesy. I respect teachers, for example. They get the short end of the stick in many many respects, doing a thankless yet highly necessary job. They deserve respect. I respect stay at home parents, that is another thankless job that gets little recognition.

A DM who does an hour or so of mostly fun prepwork, preparing to have a game with friends isn't on that level. They don't get respect automatically. Common Courtesy? Sure, but I give that to everyone who isn't actively terrible. Respect is different. You have to earn that.

 

[FrogReaver]

If it was just that you don't prefer it, then you wouldn't have had so many people telling you that your black and white view of the game was wrong.

Again, I'm definitely a story player. Yes, I like my characters to match the expected average power of the game. But if your whole point is to reduce the power gap then that is a good thing, and Tasha's helps you. Because that gap that you are saying exists, must exist between a tiefling cleric and a firbolg cleric already. And Tasha's helps remove that gap.



You have made accusations that we are power gamers. You have made accusations that we are liars. You have made accusations that we are bullies who look down on other players.

Maybe not directly, but when you frame one side with only negative traits, and then start telling people that they belong on that side, that is the only conclusion to reach.



Okay? Do you remove magic items as well? Those are optional. The game can work without those and the only use for them is to increase the power of the party. Removing those would also limit the power gap.

But, this is also completely beside the point. The point is that a Gnome Bard with a 16 dex, 16 Charisma is no more powerful than a Halfling Bard who has a 16 dex and 16 charisma from fixed ASIs. There is no build I have found, ever, that is more powerful with floating ASIs than the most powerful fixed ASI builds. So, stopping Floating ASIs doesn't prevent a power spike, because they don't lead to a power spike, just reference that list by the Scribe a little earlier. The biggest gains are in the second and third most powerful options, things the Power Gamers won't care about.




Right, and you think the people who advocate for Floating ASIs because they see it as a way to combat biological essentialism are either liars who really want to powergame or they are just too easily swayed by temptation to let the option be their default.

OR, do you think maybe, that they are honest in what they are saying, and therefor see your "but that isn't Da Rulez" as advocating for a worldview they find distasteful? Because, let us be frank, it is very very easy for talk of Racial ASIs to get into very fraught territory very quickly. See dwarven wizards having a "weakness" because they lack intelligence.




I want to limit the power gap, which is why I advocate for Tasha's and for Floating ASIs.



No, I am not more powerful than the player who chose to play with their type instead of against it.




And yet, here we are. You telling me that my experience is wrong, and that I should play your way.



And powergamers are most commonly the worst players you have, unless they have become "reasonable" and realized the truths of the game like you have. And clearly I am just wrong about my experiences, and I can't actually want to play characters for the reasons I say...



And you wonder why I keep pointing out how your words and responses have painted a very clear picture of your opinion?

I've met players who were bad in a variety of ways. I tend to respond to the player, not label them with blanket terms.



Which more powerful options? You keep making the claim, but you keep refusing to back it up. Give me one of these absolutely powerful characters. We can even both agree to not use feats.

As for my claim, it is trivially proven.

It used to be that Elf warlocks were weaker than tielfling warlocks. That is no longer the case.
It used to be that Gnome Barbarians were weaker than Dwarf Barbarians. That gap has been greatly reduced (not eliminated though, because of the Small trait and Heavy weapons)
It used to be that Half-Orc monks were weaker than Wood Elf Monks. That is no longer the case.
It used to be that halfling wizards were weaker than human wizards. This is no longer the case.

Here are four examples of the power gap having decreased. Options are now more in-line with each other. Now, can you refute this and provide examples of the inverse?




And the book heavily recommends a 16 in your prime stat. Which is the only thing that Tasha's allows. So, I am reasonably effective and not powergaming by using Tasha's.



See, this is an example of that judgement I keep seeing from you.

Who says a half-elf warlock would fit less well in the campaign? Or a human warlock? Who says you even went out of your way to play a half-elf instead of a halfling? Actually, you had to go out of your way in some manner, because Lightfoot Halflings have +1 Cha, that actually can get that 16 Cha I've been talking about. So, did you end up with a 17 Dex? Or did you roll for stats and your highest was a 14? Because it is starting to sound like you put your highest stat in your prime attribute, which you've told me makes me a power gamer, so that would make you powergaming too.



And here you are again, telling me that I am lying to myself about what I want. I know what I want.



For the Dragonborn, I was the DM, and I tried, and nothing seemed to end up working. We both noticed it and we both couldn't find a solution. I've wondered how different that game would have gone if we'd had Tashas.

Secondly, here we see the issue. You don't want to help raise up the two characters that are struggling, you want to tear down the other two characters. One of them was a half-orc dual-wielder. Any Optimizer would tell me that they were terrible, becuase Dual-Wielding is terrible and unoptimized. Another character was a goliath barbarian. Another was a Elven Arcane Archer. Again, another horrifically unoptimized choice. In the game with my gnome cleric we had a dwarven ranger/bard. And an orc barbarian/wizard. Clearly not opitmized. But, you want to reach up and prevent them from... playing archetypes? Rolling well? What exactly do you want to do to reduce the power of these characters?

So... if there weren't optimizers at the table, where is the gap you keep thinking existed? How could I have felt like I was behind, if there weren't tons of optimizers running around? I know my answer, and if you are like everyone else I've told this story towards, your will continue to be "well, it was just your perception, you weren't really struggling, you just thought you were."



The story of the other character. For example, I have a desire to play a Wood Elf Beast Barbarian. I have ever since Tasha's came out. With Fixed ASIs though, I would look at that, and I would look at playing a human with a similiar story, or a half-orc with a similar story, or a dwarf with a similiar story and find that I can get a good story out of those characters and get the mechanics to not fall behind the curve. So, I'd pick one of them instead of my original idea.

Now with Tasha's, I just play my original idea, because I'm not losing anything by doing so.



Effectiveness between myself and a better version of myself, yes.



Which is better a cleric that buffs, heals and pulls people from death, or a cleric that buffs, heals more, debuffs successfully and pulls people from death? Is having an extra spell choice to prepare that clutch spell better for the group? Yes.



Successful actions. Attacks and damage, spells landed, utility used, skills succeeded, damage taken, ect ect ect.




The spirit of the game is tied to mechanical power. I'm sorry, but it is. The moment they made an 18 better than an 8, and set it up so that level 3 was better than level 1, they decided that the spirit of the game included power, to some extent.

And I'm not pushing for bleeding edge optimization. I'm pushing for letting the races be equal. An increase of equality should be better for you, not something to be feared.



Do you know what steps I would have suggested we take? Having a 16 wisdom. Using Tashas if it had existed at the time.

No one told me that a Gnome Cleric was wrong to play. What people are telling me is that it is wrong to want that 16. That I'm just powergaming, that I'm going against the spirit of the game, that the designers never intended for me to be able to do that. That if I could just let go of this obsession with power I'd have more fun. That's what people keep harping on. Everyone constantly trying to pressure me into "admitting the truth" that all I care about is +1, so they can dismiss me and Tasha's along with me as just a powergamer. You yourself have told me at least once already that I should just "be honest with myself" even though I am being honest with myself.



So, the guides prove that power gamers exist. No one disputed that power gamers exist, so that is a moot point. And the guides allow DMs to go and remove options from the game that they feel are too powerful. Because we can't have a rising tide that lifts all ships, we just have to scuttle the ships that do too well. And that STILL doesn't say anything about floating ASIs, except that maybe the problem is you are worried too many people will have characters with 16's and then they will be on equal footing with other concepts.




Who is going behind anyone's back or trying to compete with their fellow players? No one is doing this. No one is saying they want Tasha's because then they can start an arms race with the DM and show up Timothy's character. We are saying we want it for us.



You said that you do not allow the standard array, because having static numbers just invites powergamers. That was the origin of that discussion point.

You are defending that by saying that the player's should listen to the DM with an open mind about the game the DM wants to run. I'm pointing out that that is a two-way street. The DM also has to listen to the players, and there is no reason to ban the standard array except that you don't like it. So, if a player wants to use it, you should listen to them with an open mind, and frankly, if you do that and don't snap at them for wanting to "power game" you would probably have little reason to refuse them. Rolling tends to create more powerful characters anyways.




No. I will appreciate the work the DM chose to do. I'll be eager to see what they have planned. But you don't get respect just for saying you are a DM and saying you did a lot of work to prepare the campaign. And I am immediately leery of anyone demanding respect from others.



That is not what you said earlier, but this post is getting too long anyways.



The DM can impose, but a player can't. A DM deserves automatic respect, but a player... doesn't? Oh, of course they do, a DM just deserves MORE respect. You are setting up a pedestal for the DM, and I find that tiresome at best, and toxic at worst. It is part of the reason I've actually started appreciating a friend of mine who (do to a joke that hit pretty close to home) started using the title "Dungeon Manager". Because too many DM's start taking that "master" part seriously.



Like I said, you are just lucky. I'm not alone either, I just shared my stories. I've got plenty of friends who shared horror stories with me. One pair of guys I know were playing with a DM at a con, where they were engaged in a massive battle, they thought it was going to be a really fun game... until the DM basically told them they could do whatever they wanted for the next HOUR as they ran the NPCs turns.

Bad DMs exist. They are fairly common. And I've had far more of them than I have bad players.



I will appreciate that they did work, but they chose to do that. As a DM, I know how much fun can be had during that process of making a campaign. If they chose to engage in that fun, and to run a game, then hey, I'm glad for them, but don't try and sell me on the struggles of the DM and how beleaguered they are. After your first game, you know how hard it is, and you know if you have fun doing it. And if you turn that around into demanding respect, then I'm immediately on guard, because that seems like you are trying to leverage your choice to make me fall in line.



Of course I'll thank someone for running the game. I just won't respect them for it. And I certainly won't respect them more than my fellow players.

This might be a perspective thing, but I see respect in a very different light than common courtesy. I respect teachers, for example. They get the short end of the stick in many many respects, doing a thankless yet highly necessary job. They deserve respect. I respect stay at home parents, that is another thankless job that gets little recognition.

A DM who does an hour or so of mostly fun prepwork, preparing to have a game with friends isn't on that level. They don't get respect automatically. Common Courtesy? Sure, but I give that to everyone who isn't actively terrible. Respect is different. You have to earn that.

Anymore, when posts get this long and broken up I don't really read them anymore. I imagine I'm not alone. Might be better to pick a few main themes and reply to them instead of a nearly line by line reply? It would be much more concise, readable and focused anyway.

@Lyxen same goes for you.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Then why do we say:

• Kobolds are craven reptilian humanoids that commonly infest dungeons. They make up for their physical ineptitude with a cleverness for trap making.
• Goblins are small, black-hearted humanoids that lair in despoiled dungeons and other dismal settings. Individually weak, they gather in large numbers to torment other creatures.
• Orcs are savage humanoids with stooped postures, piggish faces, and prominent teeth that resemble tusks. They gather in tribes that satisfy their bloodlust by slaying any humanoids that stand against them.
  
  This is a fantasy world, races are not equal, and I love the dwarves in LotR for being incredible artisans and crafters, and other qualities. That does not make them good at magic, or as clever as Noldors (who are jerks for other reasons, in general).

We shouldn't all of those examples you gave are things that I actively dislike in the game.

Of course you do. It's the DM who allows ANY character to run in his world, so if you bring a character that does not meet his approval, you won't run it. Of course, most DMs will not veto things without reason, and will discuss things, but if the DM says no, it's no.

Then good bye. I'm not interested in being the DMs puppet who has to put his scores in the approved slots.

And I'll take the example of the powergaming DM who will refuse your character for being to weak and potentially gimping the party when what he wants is to run a "highly dangerous world where idiots don't survive". I've seen a few of these on forums, people who think that they are basically there to prove that only "the best" (of what they think is the best) can survive in their incredibly dangerous campaign. Or worse, they might invite you in and then kill you as an example.

And still, it's not necessarily bad DMing. The players in these campaign are usually proud to be in such a highly competitive environment, so if it's what they are looking for, who's to judge their fun ?

It's not my cup of tea, but to each his own.

No, most of those are examples of Bad DMing. Inviting a person in with their character, only to kill them to make an example of that character, is actively bad DMing. You can play in a highly competitive environment without controlling the PCs or acting like a tyrant.

I might, or I might change the rules if I found that an optimiser is abusing the rules to create too much of a power gap. Out of fairness for the other players, so that they don't continuously find themselves underpowered like you did in one of your campaigns, if you see what I mean...

No one was abusing rules in that campaign, so no, I don't see what you mean.

It is kind of amusing though, you want to limit the power these guides have over your games.... by using them to decide which options are allowed in your games. Me? I just ignore the guides. I've only ever made one power-gaming mistep, and it wasn't in the guides I'm sure, and I would have done the same thing regardless until I saw it in play.

Spoiler: For those curious

Monk/Druid. I agreed with the player that it made sense that many monk abilities still worked while wildshaped, especially considering that many martial arts were inspired by the movements of animals. This ended up being a mistake, as the high AC on their wildshapes, combined with the MArtials arts attacks and bonus action attack, proved far too effective

The other players loved it, I was just frustrated as DM.

That is all that matters. People who read guides will not read beyond this and will not consider anything below blue. It just moved the goalpost.

Then since it went from 8 options to 7 (my apoligies I had misread the original post) then Tasha's reduced the power of the game. We can be done now.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No, it's not. Really.

And neither is it he designers' intent, especially with 5e where wealth does not matter and magic items are totally optional, if I might add.

PH introduction: "You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama." Pray tell where it mentions wealth and magical items ?



No it's not. Rules are just tools, just because they are there does not mean that you have to use them (and again, these are the designers own words "The rules are a tool" and "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.")

Have you read nothing I have written, like:

• We do not use XPs at all, neither do we use milestones, we level when it makes sense for the story to have characters progress, and we refrain from levelling (with all the players being in line with this by the way) if progressing would not make sense or would allow character abilities that would make the plot less interesting.
  • Note, this does not prevent us from playing campaigns to level 20, or even to have a campaign where we gained one level at each session, because it made sense.
• Adversaries do not have a tattoo on their forehead explaining their CR and whether they are appropriate for the adventurers or not. Sometimes it will be a cakewalk, sometimes an impossible fight, that you'd better flee from or even not start.

So.. you do progress from level 1 to level 2 to level 3, gaining power each time? I don't care what method you use to do so, but the designers wrote in XP.

I don't care if the players know the CR of the monsters, the monsters were given a CR by the designers, and that was used to explain when players are of sufficient power to fight those monsters.

It is all there. Progression is part and parcel of the game. You can remove it, but it still is there in the intent.