D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Vince_Snetterton]

Well, I mean I've seen his character sheet. His saving throw for his one spell (fun fact, he can't prep two spells until level 5!) is DC 7. He definitely has a 4 Wis.

This was kind of a weird game, where we rolled stats and started at level 0; we didn't pick classes until about 5 sessions in. Druid just fit his character, based on what happened during level 0 play.

Our group has 7 players, we can afford to have some characters not pull their weight in combat. Challenge play isn't really the focus for this group, it's very much focused on character color and thespianism.

Then why have stats at all? Why don't you just say "we have thrown the rule book away and we are playing out a performance where it looks like we are playing D&D"? You can say "we are playing D&D RAW, but we focus on the role-play". But that is not D&D. It just isn't. If I was the DM, that char would be dead within a session. Of course, I would never be allowed to be near a group that tolerated such a char in the first place.

What is next, a 4 Con char? Would love, just love, to see a 4 Con Wizard actually played in a combat session. Or in your game, a 4 Con Fighter.

 

[Lyxen]

Yup... I am surprised to see that DMs should get a red flag with vuman and ban them. I find roleplaying a inhuman mindset very challenging (fun sometimes, not always) and a "heroic human with a schtick" is something of a "default approach".

You can very easily play a human with a schtick from your class and roleplay, you don't need a feat for that.

 

[Lyxen]

So there are times when it is justified to put your highest roll into your primary ability?

This is textbook recommendation, why are you digging into this ? Once more, there is a world of difference between building a reasonably efficient character and not gimping yourself, and asking the DM to enable options so that you can be even stronger.

We're speaking of the same game, right? 5th edition D&D?

Yes we are, at least I was.

 

[Scribe]

Your dwarves, yes a dour, serious race, get a -2 to CHA. Goblins, a race that is explicitly called out as an underclass and often viewed as monsters, gets a +2. The more races you have in a game, the more ridiculous examples you get

This is a problem yes. I don't think it's insurmountable, but I do know what you mean.

 

[TwoSix]

If it's what you like in your groups, great, I just want to point out that it's not the average group by far.

If there's an average group out there, I haven't met them.

I'm sorry, but it's inherently not true. Individual play priorities MUST bow before table play priorities. Otherwise, it's being a wangrod, playing something because you can, but someone that does not contribute to the table's objectives or that, in the worst cases, actually go against the table's objective. And this is true to the same extent for extreme roleplayers, weirdo-ineffective characters and powergamers, with the thing being that I've encountered many more of the later kind than the two previous ones, by a factor of at least 20.

Absolutely. Bowing to social contract at the table is something I've advocated on these boards for years.

I think the difference in our experience is where you've encountered a ton more powergamers, I've encountered a ton more "extreme roleplayers" who enjoy out-there concepts. I'm probably the only one out of the 20 or so people I normally play with who has "overall power" as even a secondary consideration.

Actually, they might have something to do, for the following reason: for me, the good player is one that plays for the table even more than he plays for himself. He does not use excuses like "but my characters is designed that way" (both technically and in terms of personality" to impose things on the table, on the contrary, he adjust the definition of his character so that everyone at the table has fun.

Again, absolutely agree. If the people at my table had problems with my characters, I would adjust them or scrap them, no problem.

And, again by far statistically (although I've met a few extreme roleplayers and even fewer "purposefully ineffective weirdos"), the ones who are the most disruptive to that are the powergamers, since they built their character to shine more than others. Fortunately, they are also the easiest to take care off if you know how, just forbid the power options, all of them.

In that sense, although I can't say that the gnome player is going to be a better roleplayer, the half-elf for me is more suspicious until I'm assured that he will not use his technical might to hog the spotlight, force others into fights on his terms, and even yell at them for not being efficient and following his perfect battle plans.

Yea, again this seems to come down to personal experience. I find powergamers personally very easy to DM for, because I know what they want and they're easy to nerf if needed. The worst thing that happens with a powergamer is that the combat is short and easy; the players generally win fights anyway, so not much really changes.

But I don't play with many powergamers; it's not by design, my players are just much more the type that will take half an hour to have conversations with random NPCs.

 

[TwoSix]

Then why have stats at all? Why don't you just say "we have thrown the rule book away and we are playing out a performance where it looks like we are playing D&D"? You can say "we are playing D&D RAW, but we focus on the role-play". But that is not D&D. It just isn't. If I was the DM, that char would be dead within a session. Of course, I would never be allowed to be near a group that tolerated such a char in the first place.

Tradition, mainly? I'd be pretty amenable to statless D&D.

What is next, a 4 Con char? Would love, just love, to see a 4 Con Wizard actually played in a combat session. Or in your game, a 4 Con Fighter.

Honestly, a 4 Con fighter is much easier to play than a 4 Con wizard. Just make them an archer, and they have enough hit points on their hit die that they aren't getting 1 HP a level.

 

[Lyxen]

If there's an average group out there, I haven't met them.

Well, I've played with a lot of people in lots of places, and I've not seen many 4-wis druids, if you catch my drift.

I think the difference in our experience is where you've encountered a ton more powergamers, I've encountered a ton more "extreme roleplayers" who enjoy out-there concepts. I'm probably the only one out of the 20 or so people I normally play with who has "overall power" as even a secondary consideration.

No worries, this is why I'm clearly not putting out specific options as being good or bad inherently, more suited to some sort of styles of play.

Yea, again this seems to come down to personal experience. I find powergamers personally very easy to DM for, because I know what they want and they're easy to nerf if needed. The worst thing that happens with a powergamer is that the combat is short and easy; the players generally win fights anyway, so not much really changes.

The thing is that, if it's an all powergamer table, it's actually easy, the difficulty is when it's mix and match, as you say it's harder to DM for all expectations. And after that, of course, there are varying degrees, but the one that insults other people after trying to order them around, well, let's just say that we are better off without him.

But I don't play with many powergamers; it's not by design, my players are just much more the type that will take half an hour to have conversations with random NPCs.

Actually, it's one of the problems that we have, that coupled with the inability to make decisions, because of the dreaded "what if". It can be fun as a DM to pick some of those ideas for the intrigue, but - although we've gotten better - we've had entire evenings devoted to planning and discussion, and in the end, no decision taken...

 

[TwoSix]

Well, I've played with a lot of people in lots of places, and I've not seen many 4-wis druids, if you catch my drift.

Well, the Wis-4 druid is a bit of an outlier, even for us. But this is the same group where the paladin got a vorpal sword and kept it in her backpack, because she was a hammer user. Or where someone drew Death from the Deck of Many Things and challenged Death to a clarinet duel. My group's weird, man.

The thing is that, if it's an all powergamer table, it's actually easy, the difficulty is when it's mix and match, as you say it's harder to DM for all expectations. And after that, of course, there are varying degrees, but the one that insults other people after trying to order them around, well, let's just say that we are better off without him.

I view that more as a "tryhard" problem than necessarily a powergamer issue. People who lack the EI to understand the table dynamics and work within them are the real problem, no matter what their game play style is.

Actually, it's one of the problems that we have, that coupled with the inability to make decisions, because of the dreaded "what if". It can be fun as a DM to pick some of those ideas for the intrigue, but - although we've gotten better - we've had entire evenings devoted to planning and discussion, and in the end, no decision taken...

<Nod> The only time I ever left a group was after multiple sessions of planning with no action being taken. Too much of a clash of play styles for me, I like my games to move. I generally push forward with something if it seems people are too caught up in planning.

 

[clearstream]

This is textbook recommendation, why are you digging into this ? Once more, there is a world of difference between building a reasonably efficient character and not gimping yourself, and asking the DM to enable options so that you can be even stronger.

I am well aware that the PHB advises players which abilities to put their highest scores into. According to what you have said previously, doing so is not required: a player following that advice is power gaming seeing as it will make their character stronger in play. Or can you explain exactly what the difference is between 'building a reasonably efficient character and not gimping yourself' and power gaming? Is it a 14 instead of a 16? On what grounds do you argue that, given that a race + standard array is very likely to result in a 16* (inevitable for standard human, nearly certain for a half-elf, or must the latter avoid following the PHB advice when it comes to their floating +1s?)

It is a strawman to introduce here 'asking the DM to enable options': we are discussing what should be the future core rules, not what a player might beg from their DM. Still, it does seem like the kind of hedging you have committed yourself to once you start special pleading between 'reasonably efficient' and 'power gaming' while refusing to accept anyone liking their highest score in their primary ability - as advised by the PHB - might not be power gaming.

Yes we are, at least I was.

It's hard to understand then why you are not aware of the extremes of optimisation that are only possible using the 4d6k3 system, and why most optimisers use standard array or point-buy as a fairer starting point. You're conscious of the Anydice evaluation of the 4d6k3 average array, relative to the standard array, right?


*Or an average array alone, from 4d6k3.

 

[Lyxen]

Well, the Wis-4 druid is a bit of an outlier, even for us. But this is the same group where the paladin got a vorpal sword and kept it in her backpack, because she was a hammer user. Or where someone drew Death from the Deck of Many Things and challenged Death to a clarinet duel. My group's weird, man.

It's absolutely fine since you seem to be having fun, just hoping that you understand that it's not your average group.

I view that more as a "tryhard" problem than necessarily a powergamer issue. People who lack the EI to understand the table dynamics and work within them are the real problem, no matter what their game play style is.

And I agree, which is why I'm careful about not targeting specifically powergamers when speaking about table rules although, once more, I've had far more trouble with them than with any other category, especially since 3e.

<Nod> The only time I ever left a group was after multiple sessions of planning with no action being taken. Too much of a clash of play styles for me, I like my games to move. I generally push forward with something if it seems people are too caught up in planning.

Fortunately, some of our players were a bit annoyed by it and with the help of some DMs, we usually succeed in breaking the "what if" chain, it's just that some players find it a bit frustrating. For example me, I'm a planner at heart, so I need to be able to formulate at least a good plan, even though at some point it's still time to say "F..k it, we can't know everything anyway, let's try". It's finding the right point in time that is difficult, to frustrate no-one.