D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Neonchameleon]

3E gave us magic item values and wealth by level tables. Many people saw that most PCs had the same magic items, and said it was bad.

And many others said that it was either an expected consequence. Some said that it was good.

4E gave us better guidelines for how to balance PC and encounters. Many people saw that the guidelines advised that PCs of the same level should have equipment that provided the same bonus, and said it was bad.

And many others said that it was good. Especially as having the same bonuses allowed DMs to drop the math part and focus on making rewards interesting. I don't recall anyone who was still playing when inherent bonuses appeared really objecting to them.

Tasha's in 5E gave us floating ability score bonuses. Many people saw that this enabled PCs of the same class to start with the same ability modifier in the primary ability score regardless of race, and said it was ... good?

Many said it was good, a few said it was bad.

I give up.

There will always be people on both sides.

 

[Vaalingrade]

4E gave us better guidelines for how to balance PC and encounters. Many people saw that the guidelines advised that PCs of the same level should have equipment that provided the same bonus, and said it was bad.

Well, I mean they were wrong and we paid for it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The d20 is just too random, IMO, for a 5% difference to truly be highlighted.

As has been shown many times, that little 5% means 20-30% more damage, if we're talking about melee combat.

However, it's also true that an observer who didn't know what was on the character sheet and couldn't see the dice rolls, and only observed the outcomes...that is, whether or not they hit, and how much damage they do...would have a very hard time accurately determining whether the modifier was +2 or +3 (unless the player rolled max damage).

 

[JiffyPopTart]

That makes it hard to know if they optimized or not. Not that I care either way.

For the discussion you could assume each character put their +2 in the main stat for the class.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

As has been shown many times, that little 5% means 20-30% more damage, if we're talking about melee combat.

I must have missed this. Thank you.

However, it's also true that an observer who didn't know what was on the character sheet and couldn't see the dice rolls, and only observed the outcomes...that is, whether or not they hit, and how much damage they do...would have a very hard time accurately determining whether the modifier was +2 or +3 (unless the player rolled max damage).

Yep

 

[Bill Zebub]

I’ll add to my last comment that I’ve been playing a lot of Baldur’s Gate 3 lately, in which I know the characters’ stats but don’t watch the log so I don’t see what they actually roll.

When the Cleric misses a melee attack I roll my eyes and blame it on her 12 strength. When the fighter misses with her 17 strength, I blame bad luck.

So while objectively it’s very hard to observe the difference, there’s a psychological factor at play that, for some, makes the unoptimized experience dissatisfying.

 

[Maxperson]

For the discussion you could assume each character put their +2 in the main stat for the class.

Then all were optimized to some degree. Some people here view optimization as equating to power gaming, so the entire scale of optimization are just grades of power gaming. I don't view it that way. To me optimization is fine, but power gaming is when the optimization rises enough to become disruptive to the game.

 

[Maxperson]

I must have missed this. Thank you.

Yes. But 1 point is 25% of 4. Increase an average of 4 damage to an average of 5 damage and you have a 25% increase. It sounds big when people put it into percentages, but it's ultimately very trivial.

 

[Lanefan]

3E gave us magic item values and wealth by level tables. Many people saw that most PCs had the same magic items, and said it was bad.

Sentence 1 and sentence 2 here aren't necessarily connected; in that the everyone-has-the-same-items issue reflects a problem with the valuation/rarity of the items themselves (i.e. the items everyone has are too cheap/common for what they are) rather than with the existence of the price guide and w.b.l. table.

4E gave us better guidelines for how to balance PC and encounters. Many people saw that the guidelines advised that PCs of the same level should have equipment that provided the same bonus, and said it was bad.

I think I'd agree, not so much that it's bad but that it's a bit dull. That said, I can see that advice fitting 4e's balance-first philosophy quite well.

Tasha's in 5E gave us floating ability score bonuses. Many people saw that this enabled PCs of the same class to start with the same ability modifier in the primary ability score regardless of race, and said it was ... good?

Can't speak to this one as I've yet to read Tasha's.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes. But 1 point is 25% of 4. Increase an average of 4 damage to an average of 5 damage and you have a 25% increase. It sounds big when people put it into percentages, but it's ultimately very trivial.

At each discrete occurrence, yes; but over the long run trivial adds up to being not trivial.

Do 5 points of damage instead of 4 once, who cares. Do it 8 times, however, and you've in effect saved yourself the time that two extra attacks would have taken; and that saved time can sometimes be the difference between living and dying.