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

[MoonSong]

Extremely well-said. Honestly, it's funny how quickly one can fall into badwrongfun allegations without realizing it. Wishing to be mechanically effective is not an illegitimate wish, and feeling anxiety if one does not believe one is mechanically effective can easily dampen one's fun. It should be no sin to think that (say) a dwarf rogue sounds like fun, while also wishing to be mechanically effective as one.

Badwrognfun is relative. We cannot call badwrongfun on "starting with anything under a 16 is unviable", but isn't "starting with anything under a 16 is unviable" itself badwrongfun on people who don't optimize?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Badwrognfun is relative. We cannot call badwrongfun on "starting with anything under a 16 is unviable", but isn't "starting with anything under a 16 is unviable" itself badwrongfun on people who don't optimize?

Only if it is a declaration about what other players must do, rather than what a player speaking about themselves feels they need to do.

 

[MoonSong]

Only if it is a declaration about what other players must do, rather than what a player speaking about themselves feels they need to do.

I've been thrown out of games because I've refused to max my main stat and chosen a non-proficient weapon. There is been plenty badwrongfun from optimizers directed at others.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I mean, we can come up with other reasons, but fundamentally it allows better optimization of races for roles they weren't designed to be optimal for. To some people perhaps all optimizing is "powergaming" but I think most people can recognize that there is a spectrum, with powergamer as some sort of extreme optimizer. Outside of some people too new and overwhelmed to really understand how to make basic beneficial character-building choices, I've yet to meet someone who doesn't optimize their character in some respect (which I think would also require randomly assigning ASIs and feats every 4 levels), whereas I'd define a powergamer as someone who optimizes to the point of "breaking the game". Of course that definition, while I think it's roughly accurate, just moves the eye of the beholder factor to what qualifies as "breaking the game".

So can Tasha's optional rules for floating ability score increases break the game, making mere optimizers into dangerous powergamers? For someone it can, I'm sure. But I do think that if floating ASIs at level 1 breaks the game for someone, their version of what the game needs to be is probably too fragile to be long for this world.

 

[Morrus]

So ... basically optimization and power gaming.

I'm sorry, I know we're trying to make it a plus thread, but I just don't see it when the sole justification people can come up with is that they want a 16 at first level. I'm not picking on anyone in particular, but I see having a 16 instead of a 15 to start as power gaming. Maybe not to the extreme, but there it is.

I mean, I could have made my dwarf wizard without shifting anything around, but with Tasha's why would I? Tools are relatively benign, but in any game that I play if I run a dwarf again (just picking on that race because it's the only one I've done this with) I'm going to swap out weapon and potentially armor proficiencies for tools. Even if I'm playing a martial character.

The only reason I see to use the Tasha's rules is because you want race X to be more optimized for a specific class. Whether that's power gaming or not is a matter of opinion.

In any case, I'll go back to ignoring this.

This is the literal definition of threadcrapping. Don't do that, and if you do do it, don't start by acknowledging you know it's a + thread and end it by announcing you'll continue ignoring it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think what some people consider optimization, others consider game balance. Take the all-Halfling party for example. The folks who play rangers and rogues in that campaign aren’t (necessarily) optimizing their characters just by choosing those classes. And yet, the folks who play Barbarians and Wizards in that campaign are playing suboptimal characters. To me, that’s a game balance disparity at the design level, not the charop level.

 

[Oofta]

This is the literal definition of threadcrapping. Don't do that, and if you do do it, don't start by acknowledging you know it's a + thread and end it by announcing you'll continue ignoring it.

Sorry, what I was trying to say was not clear.

 

[Minigiant]

I thought of another reason.

To play a monk.

Monks in 5e are so ability score dependent that playing a monk without DEX or WIS race is just playing a weak character.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mean, we can come up with other reasons, but fundamentally it allows better optimization of races for roles they weren't designed to be optimal for.

See, I think the result is the opposite of optimization. Once all race/class combinations are optimized, then none of them are.

I mean, you can still pick optimized stat allocation...or not, if you think that would make you a dirty powergamer...but the race/class combination is no longer relevant to optimization.

 

[GreyLord]

I didn't use the ASI ability of Tasha's as an option, but I did use the replacement of skills and such to give my Elf Wizard the ability to wield a rapier in my last 5e game.

I had a specific idea of a character in mind (more like a Fighter/Mage from 2e type of thing...didn't work out perfectly TBH, but that was the idea) and so utilized the character options from Tasha's to try to do so.

So, not a defense of floating ASI per se (and personally, I'm not a big fan of the idea myself...but to each their own), but it is a description of how we used the Tasha's OPTIONS in what is probably a suboptimal way that didn't result in power-gaming overall, but more of an expression of character concept.