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

[FireLance]

Back on topic. I have no problem with floating ASIs. Within the fiction, I can see it as a character's efforts to improve their abilities in a particular direction. At character creation, it represents the efforts they have made before the start of their adventuring career. What I find dissonant is when floating ASIs are tied to race. It seems to me that we are only trading one form of "superior race" arguments (X race is smarter/stronger/tougher/wiser/more dexterous/more charismatic than you) for another (X race has better ability scores overall than you).

I understand that Tasha's is a makeshift patch on a historical issue. So, for the next iteration of D&D, whether it's 5.5E or 6E, if we're going to have floating ASIs, just have floating ASIs. Don't bother tying them to race or class or background or whatever. Just tell the players that after rolling dice or using a standard array and assigning the ability scores as desired, they can add +2/+2 or +2/+1 to whichever ability scores they want. Or just use a higher point buy.

 

[billd91]

Please stop here. You seem to be chopping out words out wherever you want to make your point, ignoring whether that retains my meaning. Specifically, you dropped out what "significant" was modifying.

It isn't significant optimization. As in, if I use this to get a 16 in a primary stat, and take that over to the optimization boards and go, "Dudes, look at how optimized my character is!" I will get laughed at. The optimization boards are not for discussions of making average-power characters, folks. Let's not pretend they are.

The Fallacy of Equivocation is what happens when you switch out the meaning of a word when nobody is looking. You folks seem to have decided to take a word that is commonly used in the gaming context to be applied to the process making a character as powerful as the player can manage, and applying that word to any attempt to establish character effectiveness, regardless of whether the result is actually particularly powerful.

This is the lowering the bar I was speaking about before. Making a character of average function cannot be reasonably considered "optimization".

You are sharing a discussion with other humans. If you want it to go well, don't change the definitions on them.

This isn’t a charop board, nor does optimization require maximization. Setting a minimum bar of 16 and picking a race with fixed ASIs or picking floating ASIs to get it is character optimization whether it’s pushing the system to its limits or not. If that +3 is so important, that defines its significance to the community on this board, not a charop board.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No I meant nerdsplaining and mansplaining...

I'm sure there are women who try to tell people how to do stuff in game too. Although I suspect men outnumber them.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The opposite POV (which, in the interest of transparency, I admit that I subscribe to) is that some of you have really high bars for what you call "an effective character".

I don't see proponents of floating ASIs claiming that a 14 in your primary stat makes a character ineffective. It's just that what you get by giving up the +1 modifier isn't sufficiently compelling. On the one hand you can have a grab bag of racial abilities, probably including darkvision, and a +1 modifier in your primary stat. On the other hand you can have a grab bag of racial abilities, probably including darkvision, and a +1 modifier to a secondary (or worse) stat.

It's not that the second option isn't "viable" or "effective", it's just that the first one seems like a better deal.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This isn’t a charop board, nor does optimization require maximization. Setting a minimum bar of 16 and picking a race with fixed ASIs or picking floating ASIs to get it is character optimization whether it’s pushing the system to its limits or not. If that +3 is so important, that defines its significance to the community on this board, not a charop board.

Serious question here; not trying to put word in your mouth:

Is there any point where someone cares about their character's ability to do what they are meant to do mechanically where they are, under this definition, not a powergamer?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I saw in another thread a poster suggest that the only reason to use Tasha's optional rules for floating Ability Score Improvements is "power gaming."

Easiest, quickest, and best way to stop "power gaming" in D&D? Do what I've done on occasion (I think it was about 1985'ish when I first did this)...

DM: "Stats? Just pick 'em. Whatever you feel fits your character concept, just don't go all Monty-Haul on me. Use your judgement".

POOF! I had new PC's introduced with stats like "18, 15, 12, 10, 9, 7", or "14, 17, 12, 9, 10, 10", or even "13, 11, 11, 10, 9, 7". It was the opposite of "18, 18, 18, 15, 15, 11". Why? Nobody wanted to look like a "Munchkin" (re: "power gaming loser with no actual gaming chops").

It's like challenging a friend to a game of Golf and the friend saying "Yeah, you can take a handicap of 10 if you want". No friend in their right mind would agree to that unless they KNOW they really suck. If they did take it, they are admitting that they "suck", and who likes doing that? Especially in a group with multiple friends and/or strangers?

Also, Race/Class/Whatever bonuses to stats are then irrelevant; you are choosing what you want. Want that Halfling with a 20 STR? Ok. Write it down. Want the Goliath whelp with a STR of 5? Ok. Write it down.

Of course, this did have one extra bonus... it REALLY cheesed off the one actual "power gamer" in the group! Oh man was he upset! He was mad because he couldn't claim "Oh, I totally rolled those stats and HP's and everything...not my fault the dice were nice to me!"...so it was blatantly obvious he couldn't hack it as a "normal" player.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[bedir than]

While I don't take advantage of the floating ASI very often (love the rule, just don't use it on my characters), I do get a kick out of Tasha's use of flexible tool, weapon, and other proficiencies because I'm not a fan of mono-culture races. Sometimes your elf needs to grow up as an expert with a glaive, or maybe the dwarf doesn't know anything about brewing/masonry because they worked the fields as a farmer.

 

[billd91]

Serious question here; not trying to put word in your mouth:

Is there any point where someone cares about their character's ability to do what they are meant to do mechanically where they are, under this definition, not a powergamer?

It’s all a matter of degree. Most players do some degree of optimizing with or without ASIs, floating or fixed. Put your best rolled (or array) value in the stat the class uses most and you’re engaging in optimization. Power gaming is pushing it to the system‘s limits.
I’d also wager everyone cares about being successful in what they’re trying to do, and what they‘re willing to tolerate in frequency of success, the difference between their frequency of success and some else’s with a more advantageous modifier, and so on, is also a matter of degree.
I also suspect that people who prefer one degree of optimization over another have a tendency to mutually eye roll about others who favor a different degree and feel that other players value/fail to value optimization to an unhealthy degree.

 

[FireLance]

I don't see proponents of floating ASIs claiming that a 14 in your primary stat makes a character ineffective. It's just that what you get by giving up the +1 modifier isn't sufficiently compelling. On the one hand you can have a grab bag of racial abilities, probably including darkvision, and a +1 modifier in your primary stat. On the other hand you can have a grab bag of racial abilities, probably including darkvision, and a +1 modifier to a secondary (or worse) stat.

It's not that the second option isn't "viable" or "effective", it's just that the first one seems like a better deal.

Honestly? It may just be observational bias. However, I do know that the discussion about how important it was to have a 16 in a class's primary ability score instead of a 14 at 1st level annoyed me enough to suggest that for the purpose of calculating your saving throw and other DCs and your modifiers to attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws, your ability score modifier should be capped at your proficiency bonus to reduce the difference between a 16 and 14 at 1st level in this thread.

 

[Vaalingrade]

At that point, why bother with ability scores at all? Just trigger everything of proficiency score and every character just has the exact same numbers across the board.

Thus defending ASIs forever?