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

[Faolyn]

The one about design intent??

No.

Because I dont agree Creativity is a concern Fixed vs Floating.

You are dismissing other people's statements because you don't "agree" with them.

I do believe that creativity is a concern here. So do other people. We have told you as much. You are dismissing us and as a result, telling us what we're really saying. This isn't some rule we can all point to but you can show evidence we're interpreting it incorrectly. You are literally telling us that you think our opinion is wrong, and therefore you refuse to believe that we even hold the opinion in the first place.

I didnt say that.

You said that TwoSix was being "refreshingly" honest by saying they were going for optimization.

You don't believe other people when they say they don't. Because you don't believe that creativity is a concern here, you are saying that other people are lying when they say it is. Considering how, in the other thread, you kept badgering me to admit that a +3 "wasn't required"--you even used the word "admit"--it's really clear that you think people are lying.

Unless you're trying to say that those people aren't lying but are merely factually wrong when they say creativity is a reason for wanting floating ASIs? And in that case, citation needed.

 

[Scribe]

You are dismissing other people's statements because you don't "agree" with them.

No I'm not, I asked I believe once for something further on creativity, and someone didnt want to expand on it, so I dropped it.

I'm not dismissing their feelings.

Considering how, in the other thread, you kept badgering me to admit that a +3 "wasn't required"--you even used the word "admit"--it's really clear that you think people are lying.

I'm not badgering you, in the slightest.

 

[billd91]

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.

That’s bounded accuracy, not flat. Accuracy increasing or otherwise fluctuating a little isn’t a problem, nor a contradiction. They’re just looking to keep the number bloat down to low double digits, not 25+.

 

[Faolyn]

No I'm not, I asked I believe once for something further on creativity, and someone didnt want to expand on it, so I dropped it.

I'm not dismissing their feelings

By what I saw, you dropped it by strongly implying you didn’t believe them.

I'm not badgering you, in the slightest.

You had been. “Just admit you want the +2, not that you need it.”

And you didn’t answer my questions.

 

[Scribe]

We have told you as much. You are dismissing us and as a result, telling us what we're really saying.

That's not how it works. I asked for clarification, didn't receive it.

I'm not telling anybody what they are saying, I don't make assumptions and put words in people's mouths by representing what they say, habitually.

you refuse to believe that we even hold the opinion in the first place.

Nope, you may believe it, I don't refuse to accept you have an opinion.

You said that TwoSix was being "refreshingly" honest by saying they were going for optimization.

Indeed so.

By what I saw, you dropped it by strongly implying you didn’t believe them

Nope, I asked for clarification, didn't get it.

You had been. “Just admit you want the +2, not that you need it.”

Well you refused to answer the question. While harassing me over and over...

And you didn’t answer my questions

Missed anything?

 

[Charlaquin]

That’s bounded accuracy, not flat. Accuracy increasing or otherwise fluctuating a little isn’t a problem, nor a contradiction. They’re just looking to keep the number bloat down to low double digits, not 25+.

You clearly didn’t read the article I linked.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Actually, here is a thought that might help some people understand the difference between "need a 16" and "find a sixteen more compelling than darkvision and a few flavor abilities."

If, instead of floating ASIs, the change had been to allow the fixed +2 or a feat of your choice (even if only the ones that don't give +1) I would play races far more often. I'd happily start with a 14 if I could also take Mobile, or Mage Slayer, or Lucky, or Shield Master.

(Yes, I know some of those are considered not-so-great, but they are fun as heck.)

That would have need far preferable to me. Then the +2 species would have still been allowed to maintain their niche if they wanted and not everyone would start with the same number in the main stat.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Thank you for digging up that article Charlaquin. It really shows how much the design shifted over 5e's testing lifecycle. And it makes the term 'bounded accuracy' make a lot more sense (whereas it feels in 5e it really feels more like 'DCs rarely increase, just your reliability of hitting them').

 

[ReshiIRE]

I want to point out another aspect of the discussion: difference in GM and player knowledge.

Up until the campaign I was playing in stopped and I started to look at Level Up 5e and Pathfinder 2e for the purposes of (eventually) running a campaign myself, I was simply unaware of the average saving throw proficiency and AC, etc. of different creatures, in particular bigger monsters. I wasn't sure of the what the maths assumed or what was 'required' for a character. In my head, my assumption was that if you didn't have a +5 modifier as soon as possible, and perhaps didn't always get access to magic items, you could struggle against high CR creatures.

Reviewing the maths, that isn't the case. But how many players, especially ones that either are uninterested in GMing, or, like me, didn't want to have too much out of game knowledge that could affect in game decision making (trust me, if I knew EXACTLY how the intellect devourer's abilities worked, I might have metagamed with my character and avoided getting her brains sucked out)... how is one supposed to know that 'a +2 or a +3' is fine? I even thought this was the reason VHuman was popular; because it allowed you to get a feat early and keep up with the maths.

So I think for a certain amount of people, float ASIs are useful because they don't (and maybe don't want to know - if I ever do play instead of GM, I will be trying to ignore any knowledge I have about ACs or DCs) what exactly the maths assumes, and so feel that maximising their chances to hit etc. are more important than the game actually assumes.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I'm not sure I follow. Considering your % remains static if you continue to increase your bonus, I've lost you on where those percentages are coming from.

I believe 60%, without Bless, is fine, but thats a personal thing.

And yet your personal thing does not deviate far from the plan.

I refer you to posts #217, #277, and #287. Forgive me, I am generalizing a bit, and that does lack the precision of typing in a table to explain the math. Yes, the values do change through the sweet spot, but IIRC by +1 / 5% at 9th level with the gain in proficiency bonus. I'm not sure why you bring up bless, in my examples I mentioned I was ignoring such distractors.