log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

What do you like to see in your character creation rules?

  • Fixed ASI including possible negatives.

    Votes: 27 19.9%
  • Fixed ASI without negatives.

    Votes: 5 3.7%
  • Floating ASI with restrictions.

    Votes: 8 5.9%
  • Floating ASI without restrictions.

    Votes: 31 22.8%
  • Some fixed and some floating ASI.

    Votes: 19 14.0%
  • No ASI

    Votes: 35 25.7%
  • Other (feel free to describe)

    Votes: 11 8.1%

  • Total voters
    136

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No, it is not “proof” of any such thing. It is evidence that they might (probably?) have recently been thinking that primary attributes have too much weight.
Except the baseline must be 15 for the prime stat for 1st level characters. They had to assume that every class/race combo would be played and that higher than a 15 would often not happen. As pointed out by @Lyxen, the 15(+2) baseline being ignored in favor of 16, 18 and 20 for prime stats is likely why(or a good part of why) encounters are overly easy for people.
It could possibly also be the result of what you are suggesting. But if so one would wonder why it took them so long. So I don’t find that argument compelling.
The baseline for prime stats has been 15(+2) since day 1. Switching over to proficiency instead of of prime stat now, as opposed to years ago, can be easily explained by them not thinking of it until relatively recently.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Scribe

Hero
...another conclusion is that, in general, the encounter calculator is based on standard array non-optimised characters of random class/race combo.
This is what I've been trying to find off and on, for a while now.

If this is really called out by Wizards.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Except for the fact that you are part of a party, so the entire party is attacking the monster, not just you. So your contribution is about a quarter of that.
Others have said the same, but if you're either a) playing solo or b) everyone in the party has given themselves that +1 boost, the numbers - and the point - still apply.

@Lyxen - the underlying 6-8 encounters per day design in 5e really does seem to be a thing they tried to balance around. It's far from ideal and often ends up leading to nonsensical setting elements for those who care about such; but to truly fix it would need so much kitbashing that it'd almost mean rebuilding the combat-healing-rest system from the ground up. Not worth the time.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Others have said the same, but if you're either a) playing solo or b) everyone in the party has given themselves that +1 boost, the numbers - and the point - still apply.
Or C) it's a mix, or D) nobody has. More than 2 options. :)
@Lyxen - the underlying 6-8 encounters per day design in 5e really does seem to be a thing they tried to balance around. It's far from ideal and often ends up leading to nonsensical setting elements for those who care about such; but to truly fix it would need so much kitbashing that it'd almost mean rebuilding the combat-healing-rest system from the ground up. Not worth the time.
I've gone to an adventuring week, rather than day. It solves most of the nonsensical issues.
 

Azzy

KMF DM
No, it is not “proof” of any such thing. It is evidence that they might (probably?) have recently been thinking that primary attributes have too much weight.

It could possibly also be the result of what you are suggesting. But if so one would wonder why it took them so long. So I don’t find that argument compelling.
It could be that, with information derived from D&D Beyond and elsewhere, WotC found that many characters were being built without a 16 in their main stat(s) because of playing race/class combinations that didn't benefit from a race's ASIs. And floating ASIs were contrived to benefit these combinations.

Ultimately, it's a Rorshach test—people are going to read into it motivations that fit their bias. However, without WotC formally stating their reasons, trying to prognosticat their motivation is a wholly fruitless endeavor.
 
Last edited:


I didn't notice that post. I am in favour of floating ASIs, but not in favour of the TCoE rules for moving racial ASIs.

Oh well, going forward please understand that what I am arguing in support of are floating ASIs as found in the most recent official material. Concretely, separate from race, a choice of +2 on one ability score and +1 on another, or +1 on any three different ability scores.

Seeing as the OP was discussing what must become the final official version, that is the version that I am saying will become the final official version. By 5.5th, the experiment in TCoE will join the dusty archives of D&D splatbooks and be largely if not entirely forgotten.
And I the same. I wish TCoE never came out. It felt rushed out and a lot of its implementations are open for abuses. Some ideas are good, some are great but most were not tested out correctly or with powergamers in mind. But I will admit that the last Floating ASI incarnation is a lot less opened to abuses. Still, TCoE is out there. Many use all books. TCoE is the only book that I have straight out banned because of all the potential abuses you can get in that book. Floating ASI should have waited for 5.5ed in 2024.
 


teitan

Legend
Humans are boring? I though people were supposed to be roleplaying yadda yadda yadda.

Although it is kinda clear that WOTC designed the Vuman as the real human race and the normal Human was just designed for newbs to have a human champion fighter that takes 5 braincells to make.



Not bad DMs. Bad adventure designers who don't use archers, casters, throwers, rushers, and ceilings.. Flight isn't a that big a buff and only matters until magic flight spells and item come online.

Early flight negates stealth, makes you a easy target, and does nothing if low ceilings... at the time when you HP is low. And the official flying races also stink otherwise.
So I’m a long time player, 30+ years and I’m playing a human Paladin and I am doing a plain, old boring human. Not a variant human. A plain old boring human. So… I took it because I rolled kinda poor for all but 3 ability scores and it let me level those other 3 to a plus 0 and play an affective Paladin. You really shouldn’t slam something as “for newbs” when there are perfectly valid reasons to run with it newb or not.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
So I’m a long time player, 30+ years and I’m playing a human Paladin and I am doing a plain, old boring human. Not a variant human. A plain old boring human. So… I took it because I rolled kinda poor for all but 3 ability scores and it let me level those other 3 to a plus 0 and play an affective Paladin. You really shouldn’t slam something as “for newbs” when there are perfectly valid reasons to run with it newb or not.

And that's my problem with this "optimising" perspective, there is in general a bit of condescension (if not more) towards other players who don't play as technically (hence also my dislike for the words "skilled play" as if it was a quality of the game), or who are suspected of playing even more "easy mode". They are not all like that, but it's a common enough attitude that really raises my hackles. I have as much fun (a different one, for different reasons, but it's still the same game) playing with my 35+ years buddies who master almost all aspects of the game as playing with my grandson who cannot even read, even less master any sort of rules and character creation subtleties.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
So I’m a long time player, 30+ years and I’m playing a human Paladin and I am doing a plain, old boring human. Not a variant human. A plain old boring human. So… I took it because I rolled kinda poor for all but 3 ability scores and it let me level those other 3 to a plus 0 and play an affective Paladin. You really shouldn’t slam something as “for newbs” when there are perfectly valid reasons to run with it newb or not.
Paladin is one of the top 3 classes in 5e and one of the few MAD classes that work.

Human Paladin working is an anomaly.

Original Human was designed to be easy to run. It was designed so anyone could make an effective human PC with little additional complexity or thought. There's nothing wrong with liking it.

However "+1 to all stats" is as "this was designed so you don't have to think about it" as you can get. You don't even get a bonus skill, tool,or language. Not "Humany" race feature.

Just "Add 1 to all your stats. Done". Perfect for first timers and quick builds.
 

Paladin is one of the top 3 classes in 5e and one of the few MAD classes that work.

Human Paladin working is an anomaly.
You know the bolded bit to be true because...? Why does the PHB include a narrative of a human paladin in the opening paragraph of the paladin class description in the PHB?

Are there other class/race combos that work only by exception or anomaly, in your opinion?

Original Human was designed to be easy to run. It was designed so anyone could make an effective human PC with little additional complexity or thought. There's nothing wrong with liking it.
Anyone can "make an effective human PC" with a human but they are an outlier if it is an effective paladin?

However "+1 to all stats" is as "this was designed so you don't have to think about it" as you can get. You don't even get a bonus skill, tool,or language. Not "Humany" race feature.
"One extra language of your choice" but otherwise accurate about the features of Human. However, I'm not sure about the value judgement of "so you don't have to think about it". I personally believe many first time players, when choosing a race, are more attracted to the artwork and description of the races that spur imagination than they are repelled by the "complexity" of the abilities of the various races. YMMV.

Just "Add 1 to all your stats. Done". Perfect for first timers and quick builds.
You make claims that imply designer intent. If Human is "perfect for... quick builds", why didn't the designers include them as part of the Quick Build sections for each class in the PHB?
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
You know the bolded bit to be true because...? Why does the PHB include a narrative of a human paladin in the opening paragraph of the paladin class description in the PHB?

Are there other class/race combos that work only by exception or anomaly, in your opinion?
The community. Most fans consider paladin one of 5es stronger classes.

Paladin just happens to be the only really strong MAD class in base 5e. You could maybe say the same with Human Ranger but only with later subclasses and Tasha's adjustments.
Anyone can "make an effective human PC" with a human but they are an outlier if it is an effective paladin?
It was a design goal. Human gets you a 16 with every class.

One extra language of your choice" but otherwise accurate about the features of Human. However, I'm not sure about the value judgement of "so you don't have to think about it". I personally believe many first time players, when choosing a race, are more attracted to the artwork and description of the races that spur imagination than they are repelled by the "complexity" of the abilities of the various races. YMMV.
I meant the 5e playtest spent MONTHS trying to design an easy mode Human Fighter for new players.

Human was purposefully designed to be easy for newbs.


You make claims that imply designer intent. If Human is "perfect for... quick builds", why didn't the designers include them as part of the Quick Build sections for each class in the PHB?
They didn't include any race in class quick build.

But Human was designed to be easy in playtest.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
You know the bolded bit to be true because...? Why does the PHB include a narrative of a human paladin in the opening paragraph of the paladin class description in the PHB?

Are there other class/race combos that work only by exception or anomaly, in your opinion?
Since all race/class combos work with a 15 in the main stat, I guess they are all anomalies.

You make claims that imply designer intent. If Human is "perfect for... quick builds", why didn't the designers include them as part of the Quick Build sections for each class in the PHB?

Gnome bard is one of their examples in the gnome class. A race with no charisma bonus at all.

"Laughing as she tunes her cittern, a gnome weaves her subtle magic over the assembled nobles, ensuring that her companions' words will be well received."
 
Last edited:

Lyxen

Great Old One
The community. Most fans consider paladin one of 5es stronger classes.

So what ? Optimised paladins of specific archetypes and with specific feats, for sure, paladins in general, I'm not so sure.

It was a design goal. Human gets you a 16 with every class.

No, it does not, reminder: rolling stats is still the only official way to generate stats, so a human guarantees absolutely nothing.

I meant the 5e playtest spent MONTHS trying to design an easy mode Human Fighter for new players.

An easy more fighter, yes, human, again not so sure.

Human was purposefully designed to be easy for newbs.

And where is the proof of that ?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No, it does not, reminder: rolling stats is still the only official way to generate stats, so a human guarantees absolutely nothing.
That's not correct. The array isn't an optional rule. It's a default stat generation option. That player has the choice to either roll or choose an array as the stat generation methods.

Point buy is the only variant listed.

Not that it changes your point. Since a large percentage of people roll for stats, a human cannot be guaranteed to give a 16 for the primary class ability score.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
That's not correct. The array isn't an optional rule. It's a default stat generation option. That player has the choice to either roll or choose an array as the stat generation methods.

You're absolutely right, for some reason I remembered it as a variant, but it's just an alternative: "If you want to save time or don’t like the idea of randomly determining ability scores, you can use the following scores instead: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8."

Point buy is the only variant listed.

Not that it changes your point. Since a large percentage of people roll for stats, a human cannot be guaranteed to give a 16 for the primary class ability score.
 

Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
I'm with you on this.

And, FWIW, this is not only an argument against the stance that a PC "needs" that sweet sixteen over a 14 in their main stat to be effective but also an argument against the stance that taking that sweet sixteen over a 14 in their main stat is somehow the path to powergaming. Truth is, the +1 is barely noticeable over the course of a session. Either way.
Its also an argument against the idea that giving a race +2 noticably defines a characteristic of that particular race.
 


Its also an argument against the idea that giving a race +2 noticably defines a characteristic of that particular race.
Maybe?

To me, the +2 signals that that player race is, on average, slightly better than a commoner at that ability, as defined by the monster manual. Noticeably better in game play? No. That squarely depends on what score the player puts down for that ability. Which begs the question: why have ASI for race at all?
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top