Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 8379128" data-attributes="member: 7031982">I've actually been thinking about this a lot over dinner.&nbsp; I agree with the first part, but not your conclusion.&nbsp; It is all about getting the best possible score, but I think that's only because the game doesn't offer anything else sufficiently compelling to trade it for.&nbsp; I mean, at higher levels people are sometimes willing to trade the higher score for a feat, but we don't know what people are willing to do at 1st level because the only way to get a feat (vHuman) also lets you get a 16. Which made me think of a possible compromise solution.&nbsp; (I mean, not that any of us have any influence over D&amp;D's design, but let's pretend it's like fantasy football, but....fantasy game designer.)What if races got a +1 ASI, sub-races got an additional +1, and then there's an additional floating +1 that can go anywhere, including overlapping one of the first two.&nbsp; So fans of racial ASIs for historical/traditional/thematic reasons would still have that, and the only races that could start with a 17 would be those traditional archetypes, but anybody, with any race/class combination, could start with a 16 in their primary stat.I would still prefer just a floating +2/+1 for simplicity, but I would also be ok with this +1/+1/+1 solution.It's not a competitive wargame, but that doesn't mean people don't get satisfaction from mechanical effectiveness.&nbsp; And although the &quot;why&quot; might be an interesting question to explore, the reality is that it's what a lot of people do (based on D&amp;DBeyond data.)I mean, I am equally boggled by some of the practices espoused in the name of roleplaying.&nbsp; But, hey, it's what some people do.&nbsp; And I know that trying to rank playstyles in order of validity, and to claim that one is better than another, is not really a useful or productive way to resolve the kinds of questions we're talking about in this thread.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bill Zebub, post: 8379128, member: 7031982"] I've actually been thinking about this a lot over dinner. I agree with the first part, but not your conclusion. It [I]is[/I] all about getting the best possible score, but I think that's only because the game doesn't offer anything else sufficiently compelling to trade it for. I mean, at higher levels people are [I]sometimes[/I] willing to trade the higher score for a feat, but we don't know what people are willing to do at 1st level because the only way to get a feat (vHuman) also lets you get a 16. Which made me think of a possible compromise solution. (I mean, not that any of us have any influence over D&D's design, but let's pretend it's like fantasy football, but....fantasy game designer.) What if races got a +1 ASI, sub-races got an additional +1, and then there's an additional floating +1 that can go anywhere, including overlapping one of the first two. So fans of racial ASIs for historical/traditional/thematic reasons would still have that, and the only races that could start with a 17 would be those traditional archetypes, but [I]anybody[/I], with any race/class combination, could start with a 16 in their primary stat. I would still prefer just a floating +2/+1 for simplicity, but I would also be ok with this +1/+1/+1 solution. It's not a competitive wargame, but that doesn't mean people don't get satisfaction from mechanical effectiveness. And although the "why" might be an interesting question to explore, the reality is that it's what a lot of people do (based on D&DBeyond data.) I mean, I am equally boggled by some of the practices espoused in the name of roleplaying. But, hey, it's what some people do. And I know that trying to rank playstyles in order of validity, and to claim that one is better than another, is not really a useful or productive way to resolve the kinds of questions we're talking about in this thread. [/QUOTE]

Verification