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

[Charlaquin]

Quoting a post a second time now that I'm not at work.

In 4e,a 16 in your primary score and a 14 in you secondary was standard. Thats what the standard array and point but gave you. Itwas seen as fine to roll with a 16.A 18 was unneccesary but good. a 20was right now powergaming.

Ha, no, you definitely needed an 18 in your primary in 4e.

 

[Faolyn]

Quote me where I said that people only want Floating so they can live longer, or wont 'lose'.

I mean it should be a given nobody wants to play to lose, that really shouldnt be a debate here, but feel free to find where I said that.

EDIT: I just looked, at a glance no post of mine in this thread is telling people why they want Floating.

Let's see...

Failure state in general. I get the impression that the core design is 'struggle averse' to almost a fault.

If we accept the default stat generation is rolled.
If we accept the intent is to pick classes where ASI matches your race.
If we accept the CR guidelines?

Then the intent seems to be, the players are almost never at risk.

So, right here, in response to me.

Or, in response to Baron Opal saying they want to feel effective, you dismiss their feelings as "non-answers" because it's not "objective."

I'm looking for something objective here. This is similar to a lot of thing things which are non-answers in this thread.

Actually effective, is anything above 50%.

Feeling effective? Is a personal evaluation.

You do this in several posts, actually. Even just a couple of posts ago, where you say you wish you could find an actual ruling on the expectations the game was built around.

Here, in response to Bill Zebub, you are saying that that floating ASIs are there for optimization.

With floating, there's just one less excuse to not having a 'better' character.

Or this one, in response to BookTenTiger.

If people believe that they use floating ASI for 'creativity' and thats all, just 'Creativity' that really doesnt tell me much, but I guess I dont need to understand so have a good one

Here you are showing that you don't accept what people are actually saying about themselves and that you don't think it's for creativity at all (especially since you posted a screencap of a quote of "restriction breeds creativity.")

And here, TwoSix said they do floating ASIs for powergaming, to which you replied

Refreshing honesty, and you are completely right that its a 100% legitimate motivation for play.

Which shows that you think people are lying when they say they use floating ASIs for other reasons.

And that's only from this thread. I've had this discussion with you in multiple threads where you've been more overt.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah I do this, too. It’s one reason I want to start with a sixteen.

Same here. One of the reasons I want to start with a high stat is so I can get as many feats as possible, and few to none ASIs.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What? No Tortles?

They are not in the phb... so it might not be available...

 

[Scribe]

So, right here, in response to me.

Thats Wizard intent, not talking about your motivation.

You do this in several posts, actually. Even just a couple of posts ago, where you say you wish you could find an actual ruling on the expectations the game was built around.

Yes I would like to know. I'm not assigning any desire to you.

Here, in response to Bill Zebub, you are saying that that floating ASIs are there for optimization.

This is correct, and true. I'm not telling them its the reason for them to prefer floating. Its factually true that you can optimize easier, with floating. No?

Here you are showing that you don't accept what people are actually saying about themselves and that you don't think it's for creativity at all (especially since you posted a screencap of a quote of "restriction breeds creativity.")

And what is creativity?

Which shows that you think people are lying when they say they use floating ASIs for other reasons.

Wrong. Its a refreshing statement that they are doing it for X reason, and they dont care about what people think about it.

Not telling anyone what they feel, and certainly not you.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Same here. One of the reasons I want to start with a high stat is so I can get as many feats as possible, and few to none ASIs.

We might have to revoke your optimizer license. You....you....ROLEPLAYER!

 

[Faolyn]

Thats Wizard intent, not talking about your motivation.

Yes, it is. The only reason to even bring it up is to say that (you believe) people don't want to lose and thus they use floating ASIs and roll for stats. Otherwise, it doesn't mean anything in the conversation.

This is correct, and true. I'm not telling them its the reason for them to prefer floating. Its factually true that you can optimize easier, with floating. No?

Yes, you really are. Otherwise, you wouldn't even be bringing up optimization here. You'd be discussing creative chargen.

And no. It's "easier" to optimize with fixed ASIs because the races were built with the expectation that they would be played with certain race/class combos, and thus very often their traits aid their expected classes. Fighter-y half and full orcs (and hobgoblins, githyanki, etc.) have extra combat traits. Roguish halflings have sneaky abilities. Wizard-y high elves have an extra cantrip. If you play an orc wizard, your combat traits aren't nearly as useful. If you play a halfling fighter, your inability to use Heavy weapons without penalty is a hindrance and your sneakiness isn't as helpful. If you play a high elf anything that's not a caster, and take an attack cantrip, it's likely less useful than your actual class abilities and it eats up an action. (My Levestus tiefling rogue/fighter is 7th level. I can count the number of times I've used ray of frost on one hand, and a couple of those times, it was to help put out fires.) It's pretty clear, to me at least, that the high elf's cantrip is there so wizards can have more attack cantrips and more utility cantrips.

And what is creativity?

You know. It's that thing where a gamer can make a character they want without having to stick to "optimized" race/class builds.

Wrong. Its a refreshing statement that they are doing it for X reason, and they dont care about what people think about it.

Then why did you say "refreshing honesty"? Don't try to pretend that you only said that because they don't care what people think. It means that you think we're lying and ashamed of it.

Because you have never said "it's refreshingly honest that you say you like floating ASIs to enhance your creativity."

 

[Charlaquin]

Unfortunately, I can't find the Legend & Lore articles from the D&D Next playtest, but it would have likely been in one of those.

@Scribe, With the tip to check legends and lore, I did some digging, and while I have yet to find the quote in question, I did find something very interesting. In the original article introducing the concept of bounded accuracy (and coining the term for it) explained it thusly.

The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels.

Furthermore, the article goes on to say very much the opposite of what I’m asserting (that primary ability bonus is expected to start at +3, increase to +4 at 4th level, and increase again to +5 at 8th level).

We also make the same assumptions about character ability modifiers and skill bonuses. Thus, our expected DCs do not scale automatically with level, and instead a DC is left to represent the fixed value of the difficulty of some task, not the difficulty of the task relative to level.

However, this should be taken in context with the point on 5e’s development when the article was written. At the time, 5e’s proficiency bonus mechanic hadn’t been developed yet. Training in a skill or tool gave a flat +3 bonus that never increased, and different classes’ attack bonuses increased at different rates, as the article also alludes to:

Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace.

If bounded accuracy means they assume no increase in accuracy as level increases, and everyone’s to-hit bonus increases at exactly the same rate, that must necessarily mean that target numbers increase commensurately with them, or else accuracy would increase. And we see exactly that if we look under the hood. As long as players’ primary ability modifier increases at 4th and 8th level, they maintain that same degree of accuracy against level-appropriate monsters (which depending on your starting score in your primary ability ranges between 45% and 65%).

This seems to contradict the initial intent of bounded accuracy, but my hypothesis is that this was done in order to make possible another change that was introduced in the same packet as the proficiency bonus progression became unified: the equation of feats with ability score increases.

A link to the full article on the wayback machine, should anyone care to read it:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Bounded Accuracy)

web.archive.org

 

[ad_hoc]

Bigger numbers are fine, but in a game with fixed ranges, it's notable to me.

It's both 'just' 5%, while still being double what it was.



Failure state in general. I get the impression that the core design is 'struggle averse' to almost a fault.

If we accept the default stat generation is rolled.
If we accept the intent is to pick classes where ASI matches your race.
If we accept the CR guidelines?

Then the intent seems to be, the players are almost never at risk.

Which is fine, I just wish there was a source (my google searching is weak) that they say 'yeah we designed around 70% success'.

Default stat gen is also standard array

 

[Minigiant]

Ha, no, you definitely needed an 18 in your primary in 4e.

I said that.

In 4e, you need a 18 primary IF you play past level 10.
The same may be true in 5e for 16s.