D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Crimson Longinus]

Eh,

If barbarians are all strength-based (which I'm totally fine with), then maxing strength is always a no-brainer idea. You might be able to work out a weird build that can do okay with crappy strength, but that would either be an accidental or deliberate break in the design intent.

(Accident would be like discovering that rogue grapplers are sop awesome at grappling that not hitting with Sneak Attack isn't a problem, deliberate would be a Dervish barbarian who specifically uses dex instead of strength.)

I definitely think dex barbarians should be thing. Barbarians are bizarrely aggressively locked to strength.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't think it is absolutely necessary for all stats to be equally important for all classes, there just should be more flexibility. Fighter actually is one of the better cases, you can build a strength or dex fighter and either will work OK and they also tend to play at least a bit differently.

Analogous thing for casters that I once suggested was that casting stat wouldn't actually depend on the class, it would depend on the spell. (Though there could be some "finesse" spells that could use multiple stats.) But this would require a drastic redesign.

I'd redesign with many spells having set stat-dependencies (ie enchantments are typically keyed to charisma) and some spells are keyed to "main spellcasting ability" (especially evocations so everyone has battle spells) - but we're talking 7e / heartbreaker territory here.

 

[Lanefan]

I agree wirh your calculations. However, you only do more damage if the other players in your groups are all taking choice 2 and you're "forced" to keep up with them, foregoing your flavorful idea, or accepting the "relative penalty" damagewise. If everyone in your group has a 15 instead of a 16, everyone will do less damage and the DM will send 20% less kobolds at your group than he'd hzve in the other case.

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.

hen I GM I tailor the challenge to the PCs and I am pretty sure everyone does that.

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...

 

[Lanefan]

Again you missed my point.

My point was that PCs are elite. Even when they are new and fresh. You are still Lebron James, Abraham Lincoln, Tom Brady, Usain Bolt, Albert Einstien, or Hulk Hogan. A PC is not a typical member of their race even as a greenhorn. Not in Modern D&D.

Yes, and I'm saying that this aspect of Modern D&D makes the game considerably worse than it could be.

 

[Lanefan]

... barbarians ...no-brainer idea. ...

Somehow those two concepts just seem to fit together...

 

[clearstream]

If we accept that the math doesn't require it, and nobody had even tried to demonstrate that it does which I've seen, then yes, its a belief, or more likely, a simple desire.

Power gaming would not simply be 'effective'. Getting into conversations around defining subjective terms leads to long threads so I'll ask you.

What is 'power gaming'?

I was thinking about player motivations. So far, I have heard a (somewhat self-contradicting) argument that says something like -

1. it is possible to play a character as successfully with 14 in their primary ability as with 16
2. therefore a 16 is not required to play a character successfully, because a 14 will do
3. therefore to seek to have a 16 must be due to other motivations
4. the only other motivation for wanting a 16 that a player can have, is to maximise as much as possible their values aka power game
5. to power-gamers, a 16 is always better than a 14, and only power-gamers care about that

You can see that the explanation is teleological, and the putative separation between a normal player and a power gamer is that between playing successfully and playing to maximise. This might not be exactly right, but bear with me one step further.

• The assumption in 4. is mistaken. There are other motivations that haven't being accounted for
• One such motivation is satisfaction. It is unsatisfying to have a 14 when a 16 is available and has some mechanical consequences
• Playing successfully if it is not simple maximising (as already excluded) can reasonably include being satisfied with that play
• If a player is not satisfied with their play, they are entitled to call that play unsuccessful

Something that is very noticeable in player behaviours - across games - is the scratching of itches. Putting things right. There are literally games about tidying up. People speak of the tactile satisfaction of moving a well-weighted Chess piece across the board. Games are played for satisfaction, as much as they are played to be won.

For a player to be put in the position of making an unsatisfying choice in a game, is unappealing. This is quite aside from the power that might be associated with choosing one way or another. I notice this happening with races. A visible internal struggle as the player tries to reconcile themselves with unsatisfying aspects of a possible choice, and as often fails and goes with the one that - in the game design as presented - is more satisfying. For me, the 'doesn't require' and 'power gaming' arguments stumble at this hurdle: they attribute motivations too narrowly (as well as containing lack of clarity about what would be required, or successful.)

 

[Lyxen]

For a player to be put in the position of making an unsatisfying choice in a game, is unappealing.

That was quite a long post, but it still boils down to exactly one thing: "I want a 16 because others can have it, and the game is unappealing to me because I am not as powerful as others (coud be)".

THEREFORE, as there are still absolutely no other reason provided for using Floating ASIs than scratching the itch above, it only, purely, about power. Q.E.D.

And it's amusing to see people dancing the same way around it in the other thread in which it's impossible to comment, at least some people are honest about them, but all the others are scrambling around "creativity" as if you could not have been creative with race and class before, it just needed to accept having a 14 or 15 in your main stat. How creative is it to get a +1, I am honestly flabbergasted that intelligent people claim that this makes them more creative.

 

[clearstream]

That was quite a long post, but it still boils down to exactly one thing: "I want a 16 because others can have it, and the game is unappealing to me because I am not as powerful as others (coud be)".

THEREFORE, as there are still absolutely no other reason provided for using Floating ASIs than scratching the itch above, it only, purely, about power. Q.E.D.

And it's amusing to see people dancing the same way around it in the other thread in which it's impossible to comment, at least some people are honest about them, but all the others are scrambling around "creativity" as if you could not have been creative with race and class before, it just needed to accept having a 14 or 15 in your main stat. How creative is it to get a +1, I am honestly flabbergasted that intelligent people claim that this makes them more creative.

Let me revise what I said. What do you believe is included in the full range of motivations that people have for, and while, playing games?


[EDITED]

 

[Lyxen]

It's surprising to see such comprehensive lack of empathy for the motivations of other people.

And that is a really surprising statement. On the contrary, I think it shows a great deal of empathy, which is about understanding their motivations, possibly better than they do themselves. Except in some extreme cases (and these are probably rare), D&D is not a pure game, there will be mixes of all the elements in there, whether it's (and these are not exclusive) the three pillars, roleplaying, optimisation, etc.

It's therefore not "bad" in anyway to give power to one's character to overcome the challenges ahead. For example, except again in rare cases, people are not going to make a character which is completely dysfunctional (and at some, if not most, tables, creating a truly dysfunctional character can certainly be a case of being a wangrod and not wanting to participate to the game as played by the other people around it).

Using Floating ASIs does not make you a munchkin, neither does it make you a powergamer. But it is a power option, and if you choose it, it's best that you understand the reasons for your choice, because that one is clear.

To contrast things, let's look at rolling stats, which is still the only default option in the game. I'm not sure how many people are using this, in percentage. There are lots of people who use it for power reasons, because it's the only way in the rules to get really powerful scores, and honestly when you see some creatures out there, it's obvious that it's not being used straight out of the box, it's only being used for multiple rollings until something "acceptable" (i.e. at least one 18 and more if possible). In which case it's usually being described with a "but I was really lucky: (yeah, right, like we are supposed to believe that, but it's another story). But some people also use it (there is a good example in that other thread) to generate really unexpected characters (and by the way, the poster there then realised that he did not want Floating ASIs, because they would just disrupt the unexpectedness of the character). At our tables, we do it for that purpose, but also to counter the "builds" of our few remaining powergamers, as these are always created along the line of perfect ability scores generated by point-buy.

So, as a contrast, although it can be used for power, it's not a pure power option, there are other considerations there. It's not the case for the Floating ASIs, it's just pure power, you can get just as, or actually much more creative using the standard generation methods of the game. But there is that core of "I should be entitled a 16" like anyone, which is a bit the same as with the point-buy "I am entitled as many points as anyone else in the game".

At our tables, no one but the DM and you know your characters and your stats, and even though some might know your class, it's very unlikely that they will know your exact race and possibly archetype. So why care, as long as you're having fun with your character ?

 

[clearstream]

And that is a really surprising statement. On the contrary, I think it shows a great deal of empathy, which is about understanding their motivations, possibly better than they do themselves. Except in some extreme cases (and these are probably rare), D&D is not a pure game, there will be mixes of all the elements in there, whether it's (and these are not exclusive) the three pillars, roleplaying, optimisation, etc.

So you believe you understand the motives of other players better than they do themselves. Therefore nothing they can say is likely to make any difference to what you think.

It's therefore not "bad" in anyway to give power to one's character to overcome the challenges ahead. For example, except again in rare cases, people are not going to make a character which is completely dysfunctional (and at some, if not most, tables, creating a truly dysfunctional character can certainly be a case of being a wangrod and not wanting to participate to the game as played by the other people around it).

Using Floating ASIs does not make you a munchkin, neither does it make you a powergamer. But it is a power option, and if you choose it, it's best that you understand the reasons for your choice, because that one is clear.

You have yet to explain what prevents players accomplishing the same thing with fixed ASIs. Particularly salient because for years we have seen players doing exactly that.

To contrast things, let's look at rolling stats, which is still the only default option in the game. I'm not sure how many people are using this, in percentage. There are lots of people who use it for power reasons, because it's the only way in the rules to get really powerful scores, and honestly when you see some creatures out there, it's obvious that it's not being used straight out of the box, it's only being used for multiple rollings until something "acceptable" (i.e. at least one 18 and more if possible). In which case it's usually being described with a "but I was really lucky: (yeah, right, like we are supposed to believe that, but it's another story). But some people also use it (there is a good example in that other thread) to generate really unexpected characters (and by the way, the poster there then realised that he did not want Floating ASIs, because they would just disrupt the unexpectedness of the character). At our tables, we do it for that purpose, but also to counter the "builds" of our few remaining powergamers, as these are always created along the line of perfect ability scores generated by point-buy.

At our table we use a low point value random generation, drawing from a deck and assigned as drawn. We use several rules options that consciously power-down our characters. And yet we prefer floating ASIs. The dissonance with your views couldn't be clearer.

So, as a contrast, although it can be used for power, it's not a pure power option, there are other considerations there. It's not the case for the Floating ASIs, it's just pure power, you can get just as, or actually much more creative using the standard generation methods of the game. But there is that core of "I should be entitled a 16" like anyone, which is a bit the same as with the point-buy "I am entitled as many points as anyone else in the game".

At our tables, no one but the DM and you know your characters and your stats, and even though some might know your class, it's very unlikely that they will know your exact race and possibly archetype. So why care, as long as you're having fun with your character ?

Players may care for motivations that you are unwilling to accept they can have. From your point of view, it is indeed inexplicable.