D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Jfdlsjfd]

Now here's where I run aground on your argument: the number of kobolds should be the same no matter what the PCs are or have going for them.

Once the game starts appearing to be tailor-made for our party (unless in the fiction our PCs have somehow engineered it that way) the whole thing loses a lot of appeal. You set the challenge, preferably long before knowing anything about us, and then let us at it. We'll either sink or swim...

I totally see what's your favorite playstyle. I prefer something more tailored but not too much, tough. No "and the kobold decide to flee after nearly beating the PC because they must win" but I usually desigb encounter with general level. Assaulting the kobold village = deadly no matter what. Thinning their forces by asaulting one of their war parties = average fight, lowering the difficulty of a direct subsesuent assault of their fort to "nearly deadly" and have them warned. And when the fight happen I convert average and nearly deadly to actual party. So if the day we play the showdown at OK Kobold, two players couldn't make it and the party is severely weakened, I'll take that into account. On the other hand if they waste resources they'll have their fight adapted to the party but not to their unoptimal behavior.

 

[TwoSix]

This just means that, as a table, if you are allowing Floating ASIs. it should be with the collective awareness that these are probably going to be used as a (small) power option, potentially widening the gap between casual and optimised characters. If you have no problem of that kind (because all of your players are casual or because they all optimised, or because you don't care that much about the power gap, or because you actually think that this is going to lower the gp - which can be the case based on the actual characters being created at your table), then you can ignore that awareness. If, on the other hand, you think that this might cause some difficulties, then you can discuss them in advance and potentially avoid trouble during play. And that's it.

See, that's interesting, because to my mind it lowers the power gap between a casual player and an optimizer.

What I've observed in my games, before floating ASIs, is that the optimizers would restrict their choices to choices with matching ASIs (like a half-elf warlock or a half-orc barbarian), while the casuals will simply pick whatever choice fits their concept (like a half-elf barbarian or a half-orc wizard) and just go with 14s in their main stat or whatever stat fits their character (I want to play a 16 Cha barbarian!).

After floating ASIs, now optimizers pick whatever race best suits their build (usually humans or custom lineage, but sometimes some other divergent choices), and casuals do exactly what did they before, except now they have a lot more 16-17s in their main stat or 16-17s in whatever stat fits their image. (My barbarian has a super high Arcana check thanks to his 17 Int!) So to my mind, it's a win-win.

The only losers are really using ASIs to reinforce setting tropes and common race-class combinations, which I feel is simply a lower priority than giving players more freedom to make choices. (And yes, I do agree that giving race/heritage zero mechanical weight, making it purely an aesthetic descriptor, would probably dilute those tropes over time. I don't know where that line that causes the trope dissolution is, exactly, but I don't believe fixed ASIs are the line.)

 

[clearstream]

You are the one putting negative connotations there, my friend. Again, I've been a powergamer in the past, there is no special shame attached to that, to each his own and his own preferences.

Just to check, is it right to say that a player allocating their highest score to their primary ability is power gaming as you define it? Say if - playing a bard - they put a 14 on their charisma given that is their highest ability score. Basically, any choice that increases character mechanical power in play, is power gaming?

 

[Scribe]

See, that's interesting, because to my mind it lowers the power gap between a casual player and an optimizer.

What I've observed in my games, before floating ASIs, is that the optimizers would restrict their choices to choices with matching ASIs (like a half-elf warlock or a half-orc barbarian), while the casuals will simply pick whatever choice fits their concept (like a half-elf barbarian or a half-orc wizard) and just go with 14s in their main stat or whatever stat fits their character (I want to play a 16 Cha barbarian!).

After floating ASIs, now optimizers pick whatever race best suits their build (usually humans or custom lineage, but sometimes some other divergent choices), and casuals do exactly what did they before, except now they have a lot more 16-17s in their main stat or 16-17s in whatever stat fits their image. (My barbarian has a super high Arcana check thanks to his 17 Int!) So to my mind, it's a win-win.

This is a great point, and extremely accurate in my experience.

Anyone that had an eye towards optimization, still does, and will find it.
Anyone that didnt care before to that degree, to self impose restrictions based on race/class combo, now are just closer to parity (if they choose to be) while still picking whatever race they wanted.

This is, for sure, a positive.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

(And yes, I do agree that giving race/heritage zero mechanical weight, making it purely an aesthetic descriptor, would probably dilute those tropes over time. I don't know where that line that causes the trope dissolution is, exactly, but I don't believe fixed ASIs are the line.)

We'll see as soon as an update to the PHB is done to change racial ASIs for floating ASIs for say dwarves. Will they keep the "dwarfs are stout and strong" and make good warriors and add that somehow your characters exhibit none of those trait? Unless poison resistance is supposed to reflect that.

 

[Azzy]

Honestly, the "favored class" is not that long gone, it was "only" 3e and it is still in PF1. Can't say for PF2 though.

Meh, about 13 years (since PF isn't D&D, I don't consider it relevant).

 

[Lanefan]

No I mean they don't work.

Monk AC with 14 DEX and Wis is bad.

Can you please define what "don't work" and-or "bad" mean in this context.

Please note that said definition will be more useful if it does not use terms such as DPR, effectiveness, efficiency, balance, or anything else revolving around pure game mechanics and-or keeping up with the Jones'.

And they don't get magic armor and shield. So they actually NEED to get 16 DEX and WIS as fast as possible. It isn't desire. WOTC designed the class poorly.

Same with naked barbarians. You need 16 DEX or CON to have AC high enough to melee naked. You can't run in melee only with 14 AC.

Sure you can. You'll get smacked around some, sure, but ain't that what Barbies are for?

 

[Lanefan]

I totally see what's your favorite playstyle. I prefer something more tailored but not too much, tough. No "and the kobold decide to flee after nearly beating the PC because they must win" but I usually desigb encounter with general level. Assaulting the kobold village = deadly no matter what. Thinning their forces by asaulting one of their war parties = average fight, lowering the difficulty of a direct subsesuent assault of their fort to "nearly deadly" and have them warned. And when the fight happen I convert average and nearly deadly to actual party. So if the day we play the showdown at OK Kobold, two players couldn't make it and the party is severely weakened, I'll take that into account. On the other hand if they waste resources they'll have their fight adapted to the party but not to their unoptimal behavior.

I won't; if players don't make it to the game that doesn't mean their characters suddenly disappear - if we have enough players to sail we'll play as normal, with the missing players' PCs run by committee.

 

[Lyxen]

Just to check, is it right to say that a player allocating their highest score to their primary ability is power gaming as you define it? Say if - playing a bard - they put a 14 on their charisma given that is their highest ability score. Basically, any choice that increases character mechanical power in play, is power gaming?

Once more, don't you think that there's a bit of difference between just using the standard options of the game, and requesting the specific use of an option that provides only purely technical and mechanical benefits ?

 

[Minigiant]

Can you please define what "don't work" and-or "bad" mean in this context.

Please note that said definition will be more useful if it does not use terms such as DPR, effectiveness, efficiency, balance, or anything else revolving around pure game mechanics and-or keeping up with the Jones'

I have to get home to see my DMG book. However 14 DEX and WIS gets you AC 14 and it doesn't go up until you take level ASI.

And it can't use magic armor nor shields.

So monsters' to hit increase while a Monk's AC doesn't increase. This is with the monk being very melee focused but only having a d8 HD. So it wants high CON as well.

The naked barbarians has the same problem except it can use shields. However it's naked AC is based on a secondary and tertiary score so the shield bonus is cancelled out.

From my experience with 5e, monks and barbarians are the biggest yoyo clases.

We take shots when our groups monk drops to 0. At least 2 a session. And he's not even the tank. He just has the lowest AC and second lowest HP.