D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Maxperson]

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.

 

[Scribe]

...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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[TwoSix]

I've gone to an adventuring week, rather than day. It solves most of the nonsensical issues.

Yep. Long rests take 3 days (in a safe place only), short rests are 6 hours works well for me. If the group wants/needs to do a delve type environment, than they need to spring for healing potions or some other way to regain resources.

 

[Helldritch]

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.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Yup. That was really my point.

 

[teitan]

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]

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.