Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8385552" data-attributes="member: 6801228">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.</blockquote>

Verification