Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 8379503" data-attributes="member: 7031982">(Sorry, this got REALLY long.  I wasn't intending to type this much.)Yeah, I said, "It's not a case of me just wanting what billy has."  And you said, "No, that's exactly what it is."  (to paraphrase)Which doesn't strike me as a shining example of trying to understand both sides.In my mind there is a huge difference between, "I want to build the maximally effective character the rules allow" and "I want whatever other people at the table have."  Clearly YMMV.Really?  What if I said, "The need to have racial ASIs is the monster under the bed.  It's all some people think about."  Do you ever think about anything else?Just because maximizing the primary attribute is frequently the overriding factor, how do you know that's all they think about?  I've said multiple times in this thread that sometimes I would like to play a non-standard race/class combination, so obviously I'm at least thinking about something else, even though I don't ultimately choose it.Actually, here's your evidence: if it were true that "all anyone thinks about" is the +1 (with a recognition that by "anyone" I think you mean "the subset of people who really care about the +1") then this debate wouldn't even exist because all those people wouldn't care about other factors, such as flavor.  They (we) would just say, "Yeah, whatever, you can keep your racial ASIs as long as there is a race that gives me the +1 modifier.  Because all I think about is getting the +1.  I don't think about the other stuff."But that's not what happens.  Instead it's, "Hey, can we change these rules so that I can get my +1 and get my cool race?"  Because we are thinking about other things, too.I'll also add that what to looks like you with obsession about +1 is in the context of what the other choices are.  At level 1 that choice is basically between +1 and the features offered by a non-optimized race.  So instead of "all anybody thinks about" it's, "Given the narrow range of choices, the +1 tends to win out."  And I'll point out that at higher levels, when the choice is between an ASI and a feat, this tends to still happen, but to a lesser extent.  Sometimes they choose flavorful feats instead of +1. So clearly they are thinking about something else other than +1.Another interesting data point would be if we knew how people choose between a +1 weapon and other magic items.  If the data were to show a bias toward the alternate magic items (compared to the choice of race at level 1) that would blow your thesis out of the water: clearly +1 wouldn't be all they think about.  It's just what they value most among the limited choices at level 1.In other words, I wish what you had written above is: "It seems like that +1 is just too appealing for too many people, compared to other racial features.  Too often they prioritize it over choosing a non-standard race."  Do you see the difference between that and, "You have a psychological need; it's all you think about."?  There's no need to hyperbolize, or to psychoanalyze other people.  You can just describe the evidence, and add your perception of the results.No, your experience (and interpretation) tells you this.  The data tell us that there is a heavy skew toward optimized characters.  It doesn't tell us how many people always optimize their characters, just that in aggregate vastly more do than would be the case if it were random.That's great.  My anecdotal evidence is that people tend to pick optimized characters, but sometimes don't.  I don't expect that to persuade you.Again, you are jumping from what people do (choose the +1) to assumptions about the cause (a "need").I've said it many times: an additional +1 to a majority of class-based dice rolls is too compelling mechanically, relative to the other options the game currently offers.  It's the same problem with the ASI/feat choice at higher levels: with a couple of exceptions the feats are not as impactful as an ASI, so it makes it hard to choose the fun thing.What's "all evidence"?  You ran a test at a con, and then interpreted the results from this test to indicate "need"?Ah, ok.  Well, I occasionally build characters that don't have +3.  And, again, my experience is that people tend to want that +3, but even the people who tend that do that occasionally don't.  So maybe we can drop the absolutism?Just to drive the point home: no, the data does not suggest that. It is more correct to say that the data, as well as your anecdotal evidence, are not inconsistent with your hypothesis. Here's an analogy for you: God punished sinful humanity with COVID.  That's what the data says.  Mostly I just wish you'd say "desire" rather than "need".But I don't think most people think they have to have a +3 to be viable.  They don't have a misperception that this is necessary.  They just think the game is most fun for them if they are effective at combat as the rules allow, and will frequently choose that over most other considerations.But if we want to call that "perception", then I would say that the "need" for racial ASIs is also a matter of perception.  Even more so than the "need" for synergy, because every character you can play with racial ASIs is still possible with floating ASIs, so the only thing left is one's perception about what the rules suggest about the larger setting, even if the actual manifestation of that is undetectable.It's the way you keep overlaying your own analysis of other people's mindsets, instead of accepting what they say about themselves, that is offensive.(Again, sorry for length, and some repetitiveness.)</blockquote>

Verification