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

[Scribe]

The 5e PHB.

There is no math in the PHB to demonstrate this is an expected mathematical requirement, that I've seen.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Huh, this seemed pretty obvious to me- give me a minute.

Yeah put me in the camp that disagrees on this one.

Using just the PHB and point buy or standard array it’s not even possible, let alone expected, to have a 20 by 4th level.

If you meant “16 or 18” I could probably get behind that. And “expected” in the sense that the designers probably assume that the vast majority of players will do it. But not required/necessary.

 

[Charlaquin]

Let's not get in to the definition and details of all the sub-categories of power gaming, optimising, min-maxing, munchkinism, and I'm sure I'm missing some here, it's not the point of the thread.

What I wanted people to admit was that they are using Floating ASIs just for the additional power that it gives their character. And it's clear, there is no hidden sub-text, no other reasons given. Sometimes it's because a +2 really feels bad, sometimes it's to be able to get a feat (which are really power options in this game anyway), in any case, it purely about character power. And I've never been judging about this, telling anyone it's inherently good or bad, if it's what you prefer in your game, all power to you, I just wanted to be honest about their motivations, that's all, and I think we've had that, so thanks everyone.

As I said… a while ago, I think this comes down to a difference of what people consider optimization vs. balance. Both are fundamentally about character power, but I think there’s a difference between a desire for more power to make your character better than others, and a desire for more power to make your character not be worse than others. In 5e, Fixed racial ASIs make some characters worse at being some classes than others. They just do. I see floating ASIs as fixing that balance issue, not about making optimized characters.

 

[MoonSong]

It's a real low bar to have correct attributes, so just do it.

I can't even.... maybe to you it is a low bar, to me it isn't. I literally can't ignore attributes for roleplaying. It feels like cheating to play a dainty weakling who just happens to have maxed str (hyperbole). The characters I want to play aren't perfect or superhuman, not even larger than life. I already have to play a smarter, wiser, stronger, etc. version of me in real life, because I'm not given enough room to just be flawed me. My fantasy characters are going to be flawed imperfect, and even a little needy (They are still going to help, though). Heck, they are going to be even more flawed than myself! And, well, I cannot have these flawed characters if their flaws and weaknesses are only cosmetic. Because at that point I'm playing a perfect person who just arbitrarily pretends to be weaker. I can't get anything out of that situation. It is not meaningful enough.

 

[Charlaquin]

There is no math in the PHB to demonstrate this is an expected mathematical requirement, that I've seen.

There’s a difference between expectation and requirement. No, you don’t need to have an 18 in your primary ability by 4th level. But the game’s math surrounding accuracy and damage output assumes you do. A system needs to make assumptions like that to build its mathematical structures around. Now, that doesn’t mean you’re screwed if you don’t meet that assumption. The math is built with some wiggle-room in it, and also strategy tends to matter more than statistics. But the assumption is there, and the fact that some race/class combinations are incapable of meeting that assumption with the point buy system is a pretty glaring design flaw in my opinion.

 

[Scribe]

But the game’s math surrounding accuracy and damage output assumes you do.

Can you point to where this is demonstrated?

Under what conditions is this assumed?

I've seen the math, I've compared the math, I see no reason to believe one needs a 65% hit rate, to be effective.

 

[TwoSix]

I can't even.... maybe to you it is a low bar, to me it isn't. I literally can't ignore attributes for roleplaying. It feels like cheating to play a dainty weakling who just happens to have maxed str (hyperbole). The characters I want to play aren't perfect or superhuman, not even larger than life. I already have to play a smarter, wiser, stronger, etc. version of me in real life, because I'm not given enough room to just be flawed me. My fantasy characters are going to be flawed imperfect, and even a little needy (They are still going to help, though). Heck, they are going to be even more flawed than myself! And, well, I cannot have these flawed characters if their flaws and weaknesses are only cosmetic. Because at that point I'm playing a perfect person who just arbitrarily pretends to be weaker. I can't get anything out of that situation. It is not meaningful enough.

Yea, that's a tough one. I just don't think modern D&D really works with the motivation to play a character who has stats of 6 7 8 9 10 11 or something like that. Ultimately, D&D is a power fantasy.

Without resorting to recommending other games, those ideas scream out for homebrew where character abilities scale off Prof Mod, instead of ability score.

 

[Scribe]

I can't even.... maybe to you it is a low bar, to me it isn't. I literally can't ignore attributes for roleplaying.

Please note: The comments I've made are not my personal view, I know we don't need a 16 to be effective.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The normal point buy is so stingy that if you want to play a typical well-rounded fantasy adventurer or someone who has significant side competence aside their class focus you kinda cannot max your main stat.

 

[Charlaquin]

Can you point to where this is demonstrated?

Under what conditions is this assumed?

I've seen the math, I've compared the math, I see no reason to believe one needs a 65% hit rate, to be effective.

Again, there’s a difference between requirement and expectation. No, you don’t need a 65% hit rate to be effective. But the 65% hit rate is the baseline assumption around which progression is balanced.