D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Lyxen]

Between +1 everywhere (which, with rolled stats, can result in a lot of good stats) and a feat, depending on what feat you allow, I don't think it's more "powerful" to starts with one. But I usually taylor feats to tie with the settings so no -5/+10 pure mechanical feats.

In general, I agree with you, most of the feats are actually fairly reasonable, and should not cause a problem. The difficulty is that the feats are a bit of a strapped on rule (and they remain an option, therefore less play-tested), and it's only SOME of the feats that cause problems, and it's always the same ones, because they can be abused and some of those bloody builds cannot exist without them. Not only that, but feats like PAM and Shield Master are bloody annoying since they slow down the game a lot, with additional effects even at low level (and I also totally hate the visual effect of shield master, ragdolling an opponent every round).

In my soon-to-start powergaming DM's campaign, we are allowed one feat at level 1, but it's along a selected list of half-feats, and that's OK, it's not really that powerful and it gives some additional usual social benefits, but the point is that, because it's a half-feat, it still gets a +1 to a stat, and since we are rolling stats... Well, you see where it leads, it's always these combinations...

 

[Lyxen]

When the table play priority is "do your own thing", which is generally my preference, what then?

Then since there there are no other priorities, it's cool, but I'm not sure everyone is as lucky or determined or experienced as you are, and even with our experienced gamers, we still run session 0 to make sure that we align for every campaign...

As long as it stays in character, I've no problem with any of this; and sooner or later it'll get sorted one way or another.

Look, we've discussed a number of times and I'm fairly sure that you actually run a pretty tight ship.

 

[Lanefan]

In this case, powergamers don't like rolling if they can't modify the scores after,

Call me crazy, but rearranging the rolled scores to suit - as opposed to strict roll-in-order - is and always has been just a baked-in part of the process to me.

I certainly don't file this under "powergaming".

 

[Lyxen]

Call me crazy, but rearranging the rolled scores to suit - as opposed to strict roll-in-order - is and always has been just a baked-in part of the process to me.

I certainly don't file this under "powergaming".

That's not what I'm saying here, of course arranging scores in order has been the thing for decades, I'm mentioning adding +1 or +2 to some stats. If it's racial, it's a bit harder than Floating ASIs, which basically allow you to patch whatever you want on top of rearranging.

 

[Lanefan]

That's not what I'm saying here, of course arranging scores in order has been the thing for decades, I'm mentioning adding +1 or +2 to some stats. If it's racial, it's a bit harder than Floating ASIs, which basically allow you to patch whatever you want on top of rearranging.

Ah. I thought by "modify" you meant "rearrange".

In my game there's species-based bonuses and penaitles but they're not flat + or - values; instead each stat for a non-Human has a minimum, a maximum, and a bell curve between those, and your 3-18 roll is adjusted to suit the requisite bell curve.

So if you're an Elf your Dex is on something like a 7-19 curve rather than 3-18; so if you roll* a 3 it becomes a 7, if you roll an 18 it becomes a 19, if you roll a 12 it becomes a 14, and so on across the board. A Dwarf's Charisma, on the other hand, is on a 3-16 curve, so if you roll a 3 it stays a 3, if you roll an 18 it becomes 16, and if you roll a 12 it becomes 11.

The net result is that the bell curve morphs to suit rather than just shifts a step in one direction or another.

* - after rearranging.

 

[Lyxen]

Ah. I thought by "modify" you meant "rearrange".

Yes, sorry, I was not clear enough...

In my game there's species-based bonuses and penaitles but they're not flat + or - values; instead each stat for a non-Human has a minimum, a maximum, and a bell curve between those, and your 3-18 roll is adjusted to suit the requisite bell curve.

So if you're an Elf your Dex is on something like a 7-19 curve rather than 3-18; so if you roll* a 3 it becomes a 7, if you roll an 18 it becomes a 19, if you roll a 12 it becomes a 14, and so on across the board. A Dwarf's Charisma, on the other hand, is on a 3-16 curve, so if you roll a 3 it stays a 3, if you roll an 18 it becomes 16, and if you roll a 12 it becomes 11.

The net result is that the bell curve morphs to suit rather than just shifts a step in one direction or another.

* - after rearranging.

That's what RQ does and it's the best technique, the one difficulty with RQ is that it means rolling for stats in order, because some are 2d6, some 3d6, some 3d6+3, some 4d6, etc.

So it needs a bit a thought to get something where characters will not be really random...

 

[clearstream]

So why don't you go back to the topic at hand and stop nitpicking every single word I write, especially if it's to change them, selectively quote and misinterpret ?

I'll continue to resist gaslighting and hold you to account for your actual words.

To the topic at hand, it feels like we've strayed from wanting fixed ASIs because it's essential to capture the feel of different races, all the way to there is no real mechanical difference between fixed and floating.

No. I simply claim that fixed ASI can do what you claim floating ASI can with the same results and with no power creep.

Is the concern truly power creep at heart, and not representing expectations about different races mechanically? If a player is concerned about power, I feel we still haven't seen expressed persuasively what it is about fixed ASIs that prevents them pursuing it?

 

[Lyxen]

I'll continue to resist gaslighting and hold you to account for your actual words.

As long as it's the actual words, you are welcome to it.

To the topic at hand, it feels like we've strayed from wanting fixed ASIs because it's essential to capture the feel of different races, all the way to there is no real mechanical difference between fixed and floating.

Uh, no, I don't have that feeling at all.

Is the concern truly power creep at heart, and not representing expectations about different races mechanically?

Again, and I've said the exact thing before, it's both. Floating ASIs are a (small) power creep, but worse in combination with other options, and that's one, but it also degrades the perception of races, in particular for people expecting certain views from the genre fiction, books/movies/shows and in particular D&D ones (books in general). I have nothing against a player playing an oddball of a race, but if every PC is an oddball, it's just bizarre, and in the end, I'm pretty sure that they are mostly "oddballs" in stat only.

If a player is concerned about power, I feel we still haven't seen expressed persuasively what it is about fixed ASIs that prevents them pursuing it?

It still makes the choices more significant.

Based on recent conversation, it appears many might agree that it isn't power creep to make reasonable choices and avoid gimping your character. You're advised to do so in the core rules. Or does that still somehow fall into power creep, if the +2 is from floating ASIs rather than race? Remembering that fixed ASIs have been said to not prevent character concepts.

And once more, there is a difference between making reasonable choices and badgering your DM to allow an option because you want that sweet +3 for no other reason than because it's more than +2.

All the combinations already exist in the game, and they all make reasonable characters, everyone tells you this. Honest people then also say that they want the +3 because otherwise their character does not feel heroic/powerful enough for them, and that's fine if the DM and table agree. And that's the end of the story.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's what RQ does and it's the best technique, the one difficulty with RQ is that it means rolling for stats in order, because some are 2d6, some 3d6, some 3d6+3, some 4d6, etc.

Rolling in order is the only way rolling makes any sense to begin with. Otherwise you're just randomising power, not what sort of character you get, and where's the fun in that?

So it needs a bit a thought to get something where characters will not be really random...

One would imagine that the point of randomising things is to make things random. If you don't want random, don't touch the dice.

 

[Lyxen]

Rolling in order is the only way rolling makes any sense to begin with. Otherwise you're just randomising power, not what sort of character you get, and where's fun in that?

One would imagine that point of randomising things is to make things random. If you don't want random, don't touch the dice.

In a sense, I agree with you, but you have to consider that we are only playing long campaigns, and we want players to enjoy their character and their concepts for 50+ sessions. If the rolls are really random, especially rolling stats in order, the player will get frustrated that his character concept cannot technically work.

It's been a long time since we rolled in order, and these were usually short lived characters "I'll make this one a wizard because his int is slightly better" is not that important when there is a 50% mortality rate in each adventure...