D&D 5E Why do you use Floating ASI's (other than power gaming)? [+]

[Bill Zebub]

Exactly this. Starting with a +2, instead of a +3, simply feels bad to me. An assertion that I shouldn't feel this way doesn't change the fact that I do feel this way, and so do quite a few others.

That's the other aspect that's ignored: even if a few zealots manage to "win" this debate on Enworld, and convince a few of us to embrace the 14, there are (according to D&DB data) gazillions of other players out there who will keep making cliche characters.

Floating ASIs only result in more optimization for people who were already choosing sub-optimal race/class combinations and who can now (if they choose) use their preferred combination and get the +3 bonus. Ironically, those people seem to be opposed to it (or, the people who are opposed to it seem to be in that category), even though nothing has to change for them: they can still take a 14.

(Philosophy question: if a self-professed non-powergamer builds a sword-and-board fighter, and they choose a 1d8 weapon rather than a 1d6 weapon, are they powergaming?)

For the legions of gamers who have been only choosing race/class combinations with primary attribute synergy, the only effect of floating ASIs is to reduce the role of race in optimization.

I still think the best answer to the thread's question is "I can play the character I want."

 

[Jacob Lewis]

So... people who are fighters shouldn't be particularly strong? People who are clerics shouldn't be particularly wise?

Careful. You're about to make someone else's argument for them.

 

[TwoSix]

Floating ASIs only result in more optimization for people who were already choosing sub-optimal race/class combinations and who can now (if they choose) use their preferred combination and get the +3 bonus. Ironically, those people seem to be opposed to it (or, the people who are opposed to it seem to be in that category), even though nothing has to change for them: they can still take a 14.

Agreed. If the goal is to get people to say "I'll play a gnome sorcerer instead of a half-elf sorcerer, and having a 14 in my main stat is fine", well, honestly that's a fool's errand.

Whereas, if you just want your goal to be "I'll play a gnome sorcerer instead of a half-elf sorcerer, because I like gnomes", then floating ASIs are the best way to make that happen.

Fixed ASIs only make sense if your goal is "I'll play a half-elf sorcerer, because that's the appropriate race for a sorcerer, not a gnome." If your goal with Fixed ASIs is to make people say "My stats don't matter, I'll just play whatever sounds fun", well, good luck with that.

 

[MoonSong]

Floating ASIs only result in more optimization for people who were already choosing sub-optimal race/class combinations and who can now (if they choose) use their preferred combination and get the +3 bonus. Ironically, those people seem to be opposed to it (or, the people who are opposed to it seem to be in that category), even though nothing has to change for them: they can still take a 14.

No, because it has normalized having that 16. It is no longer socially acceptable to have a character without that +3. I can no longer find groups that will let me have a character with only a 14, let alone an 8 or so. I'm not trying to claim that playing with that +3 is wrong, but the statement "suboptimal" is clearly calling badwrongfun on those who are -used to be, remember can't find games anymore- very happy playing with 14, 13, or 9 on the main stat.

 

[Vaalingrade]

(Philosophy question: if a self-professed non-powergamer builds a sword-and-board fighter, and they choose a 1d8 weapon rather than a 1d6 weapon, are they powergaming?)

Choosing to wield a shield as a sword and board fighter is powergaming as they're increasing their AC and making themselves better at fighting using a shield.

 

[TwoSix]

No, because it has normalized having that 16. It is no longer socially acceptable to have a character without that +3. I can no longer find groups that will let me have a character with only a 14, let alone an 8 or so. I'm not trying to claim that playing with that +3 is wrong, but the statement "suboptimal" is clearly calling badwrongfun on those who are -used to be, remember can't find games anymore- very happy playing with 14, 13, or 9 on the main stat.

Yea, but the "16 norm" wasn't established by floating ASIs, it was established by the point buy/array rules and the original design of the racial mods. I mean, that's been a thing literally since the 5e PHB was released.

I mean, I don't have that issue (my group is home to the 4 Wisdom druid), but I doubt that things have radically changed in the last year or so since Tasha's has been released. Groups that expect a certain level of optimization didn't suddenly come to that conclusion because Tasha's came out.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No, because it has normalized having that 16. It is no longer socially acceptable to have a character without that +3. I can no longer find groups that will let me have a character with only a 14, let alone an 8 or so. I'm not trying to claim that playing with that +3 is wrong, but the statement "suboptimal" is clearly calling badwrongfun on those who are -used to be, remember can't find games anymore- very happy playing with 14, 13, or 9 on the main stat.

I believe the other thread is the appropriate one for people who want to crap on floating ASIs.

But, that said, I'm sorry the gaming groups in your area are so fanatical and close-minded that even a 14 has suddenly become unacceptable. Honestly that astounds me: it seems bizarre to me that there are entire tables that were previously fine with somebody else having a primary 14 because that person wanted to roleplay a certain race, but now that they can roleplay that race and also have a 16, it's no longer acceptable? Sub-optimal roleplaying decisions were fine before Tasha's, but not after Tasha's?

That may genuinely be your experience, but it's so improbably nutso that I can't really justify factoring one such anecdote into an analysis of the rule change.

 

[Scribe]

Honestly that astounds me: it seems bizarre to me that there are entire tables that were previously fine with somebody else having a primary 14 because that person wanted to roleplay a certain race, but now that they can roleplay that race and also have a 16, it's no longer acceptable? Sub-optimal roleplaying decisions were fine before Tasha's, but not after Tasha's?

Makes sense to me. As TwoSix has made clear to me, the biggest real benefit of floating is raising the floor. People who picked race/class combos that didn't work perfectly on the ASI side.

Well with Tasha's they have one less excuse to not hit that basic bar of 'got my 16'.

It's like raiding in an MMO. If you are doing all you can, and your teammate won't even take the correct talents...

 

[Bill Zebub]

Makes sense to me. As TwoSix has made clear to me, the biggest real benefit of floating is raising the floor. People who picked race/class combos that didn't work perfectly on the ASI side.

Well with Tasha's they have one less excuse to not hit that basic bar of 'got my 16'.

It's like raiding in an MMO. If you are doing all you can, and your teammate won't even take the correct talents...

Sure. I'm sure there are tables that pressure people into playing optimized characters, including a 16 in their primary.

What I struggle to accept as a thing is that there are tables that were previously willing to accept a 14 because somebody wanted to roleplay a certain race, but now they would actually eject that person from the table for playing that same character. Wouldn't they have previously insisted that the person switch races?

I mean, sure, maybe it happened. But if I said that my neighbor is threatening to kill my dog if he doesn't get to play a 17 strength halfling, would you change your mind about floating ASIs, or would you tell me to find some new friends?

 

[Scribe]

What I struggle to accept as a thing is that there are tables that were previously willing to accept a 14 because somebody wanted to roleplay a certain race, but now they would actually eject that person from the table for playing that same character. Wouldn't they have previously insisted that the person switch races?

It's a different degree, for better or worse.

Taking it back to MMO, World of Warcraft.

Unless you are extremely tryhard, I've never seen someone benched due to race choice.

Every character is expected to take the correct talents however.

At a table with floating if you have people who lean optimization, and some lean narrative, floating removes a basic point of contention, because now everybody can get the same primary 16 regardless.