D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[clearstream]

It isn't required. However after level 6 and 7, you might really feel the need to buff your primary if you didn't start with a 16 nor buff it by then.

I know several people have used the framing 'isn't required' but I still don't fully understand that idea. Nothing is 'required,' right? It's just a game. Only some things are more fun, more satisfying, preferred, likeable, enjoyable etc.

It's not required to have a 16 instead of 14, 14 instead of 12, 12 instead of 10, and so on. I suppose I would ask - where are you drawing the line, and why? And if - as it seems here - the 'required' line is being drawn between 14 and 16, what is significant about that point? And why is it significant at 1st level but not say after 4th when every character has a chance to jump over it? Why don't we draw the line between 10 and 12? If the consequences in play are really so insignificant?

For clarity, that is three questions. How is required defined? Why is the line drawn where it is? Why is it okay for that change within tier 1?

 

[Minigiant]

How is required defined?

"Required" is the benchmark of where the expected guidance to meet design play is needed.

For example, a primary weapon and shield userin 5e might be required to have at least a 12 primary score and 14 AC at level 1 in order to not be a resource drain. A CR 1 monster would have a 45% accuracy and die in 2-3 hits with a 12 STR/DEX and 14 AC.

Why is the line drawn where it is?

PHB and DMG encounter guidance expectations.

Why is it okay for that change within tier 1?

Because 5e lets most classes only adjust it once in Tier 1 and Tier 2. And this adjustment competes with other ASI equivalent items like feats. So the time to hit other possible benchmarks are slim.

Monster and obstacle stats still increase with level. Bounded accuracy creates a range but the numbers still go up. So the players and DMs have to increase PCs numbers with level with ASI, feats, and items.

 

[Lyxen]

The real issue is the semi bloated HP along with the 6-8 encounter per day game design.

There is no such thing in terms of design, at any level of the game.

A DM who uses a lot of high CR enemies has tons of HP. The DMG has you run through an expected 900-1200 HP a day if you follow the chart at level 6.

No, it doesn't. This comes from a really one-dimensional reading of a very specific rules for combat-only encounters, but the game has, out of the box, many more ways of building campaigns and adventures.

 

[Helldritch]

Please give an example of a class for which there is a floating ASI race that is obviously the superior choice over VHuman. If you can't, there's no power creep.

The idea that floating ASIs has unbalanced the game is just silly. Something like Twilight Cleric is way more of a balance concern than floating ASIs.

Ok. Dwarven wizard or sorcerer, +2 Intel, +2 con. With medium armor, it takes one more feat for the VHuman to get medium armor and the vhuman still needs to somehow get darkvision.

And the one I am thinking of, also took heavy armor as a feat. So yeah, there are things that can be better out there. If you think multiclassing, the half elf comes immediately to mind.

Bit I can contact them when I get some time off to see what they did.

 

[clearstream]

"Required" is the benchmark of where the expected guidance to meet design play is needed.

That elicits two thoughts

1. Baseline 5th edition is very easy, and for our group nothing would be 'required' on that basis. Flat 10s would do. But thinking on that, would you therefore agree that less mechanically capable players might 'require' much higher ability scores?
2. We prefer more mechanical challenge, so what is 'required' for us is actually lower than PHB recommends. We use a low-random ability score generation, allocate in order generated, and we still value the floating ASIs for the ability to tweak a character toward our concept, or just to make it more satisfying in play.

PHB and DMG encounter guidance expectations.

That makes sense, and is what informs my thoughts about baseline and required, above.

Because 5e lets most classes only adjust it once in Tier 1 and Tier 2. And this adjustment competes with other ASI equivalent items like feats. So the time to hit other possible benchmarks are slim.

'Slim' doesn't match well my experience of how these are used at the table, over years of regular campaigns. I'd say that with the exception of characters jumping for something like GWM, most players tweak ability scores first, then maybe a feat second (although simply all ability score bumps is very common in my experience.)

 

[Minigiant]

There is no such thing in terms of design, at any level of the game.

Oh yes it is.

5th edition 100% has encounter and adventures design guidance and was designed so this guidances works.

No, it doesn't. This comes from a really one-dimensional reading of a very specific rules for combat-only encounters, but the game has, out of the box, many more ways of building campaigns and adventures.

Wrong again. 5e 100% has encounter and adventures design. Even if you tweak and vary encounters and adventures, you will hit hundreds HP in enemies or oodles of enemy actions very fast.

 

[Lyxen]

Oh yes it is.

5th edition 100% has encounter and adventures design guidance and was designed so this guidances works.

No, sorry, this is only for one type of game, there are many other ways to get experience or even ignore it entirely, for one, and the 6-8 encounters per day is total naughty word (it's only an example of how things can add up during a day), used only by people who read only that sentence out of the 200+ pages of the DMG to try and steer the game in only one direction.

Wrong again. 5e 100% has encounter and adventures design. Even if you tweak and vary encounters and adventures, you will hit hundreds HP in enemies or oodles of enemy actions very fast.

Sorry, but no, these are guidelines only, not rules, we have played scores of campaigns in 5e, totally RAW but still ignoring these vague guidelines 95% of the time (but applying others, such as non-combat encounters or milestone levelling for example).

Playing it only as a combat game using XP encounters is a possibility, but I expect that a minority of games are really based only on this, all published adventures mostly ignore it in particular.

 

[Minigiant]

Baseline 5th edition is very easy, and for our group nothing would be 'required' on that basis. Flat 10s would do. But thinking on that, would you therefore agree that less mechanically capable players might 'require' much higher ability scores?

Eh. Not necessarily. 5th is easy. But like I said earlier, if you take the easy route it gets grindy.

People created requirements to escape the grindiness.

We prefer more mechanical challenge, so what is 'required' for us is actually lower than PHB recommends. We use a low-random ability score generation, allocate in order generated, and we still value the floating ASIs for the ability to tweak a character toward our concept, or just to make it more satisfying in pla

Both. Many play 5e different from the guidelines and need tweaks.

Slim' doesn't match well my experience of how these are used at the table, over years of regular campaigns. I'd say that with the exception of characters jumping for something like GWM, most players tweak ability scores first, then maybe a feat second (although simply all ability score bumps is very common in my experience.)

By slim I mean most PCs only get 2 ASI before the campaign collapses

 

[Lyxen]

Eh. Not necessarily. 5th is easy. But like I said earlier, if you take the easy route it gets grindy.

No, once more it does not. Are there even real people playing it that grindy ?

People created requirements to escape the grindiness.

No, the possibilities are straight in the rules.

Both. Many play 5e different from the guidelines and need tweaks.

There are no requirements.

By slim I mean most PCs only get 2 ASI before the campaign collapses

This is such a negative view. Maybe the campaign just reaches the natural end of the storyline ? While it's true that published adventures don't go to lvl 20, and few people seem to play at that level, there are still some who do, and the game holds on fairly well (compared to 3e, extremely hard to play beyond 12th, and 4e in which 30 feels like 5 anyway).

 

[clearstream]

Eh. Not necessarily. 5th is easy. But like I said earlier, if you take the easy route it gets grindy.

People created requirements to escape the grindiness.

So a more refined definition of 'required' ability scores might be something like - 'these ability scores are required in order to escape the grindiness entailed by the PHB / DMG baseline for encounters'?