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

[Lyxen]

Some of you have really low bars for what you call "power gaming".

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.

 

[NaturalZero]

When I played with groups in the 4e days, pretty much everyone, down the the individual, always picked a race that gave them the best ability score bonus for the class they wanted to play. The numbers were baked into the racial choice and that's the most obvious way to optimize your initial choices. The system used math to encourage min-max and optimization at character optimization.

At some point, one of the DMs decided that everyone could just pick whatever +2/+2 ability score modifier they wanted at level 1 and guess what? Suddenly the doors swung open and we had people showing up with tiefling clerics, half-orc warlocks, dragonborn wizards, et al. Why? Because when you remove the hard-coded racial ability mods, your choice is no longer about optimizing your math and is instead mostly about what you think would be cool to play.

Fast forward to 5e and what did I see again? People always wanted to pick the race with the math that helped their class the most. Racial ASIs encouraged you to pick the "right" choice so that your math problem is more likely to beat the DM's math problem. Min-max-optimization was baked into the literal math of racial choice. Tasha's came out, every group I ran with switched to floating ASIs, and what did I see yet again? People were free from optimization based on which race gave their equation the best math to out-math the other guy's number and instead we got elf barbarians, goliath rogues, tiefling artificers, et al. It's more fun to sit at a table with build variety where the system doesn't nickle and dime you with penalties for not going with the math that the developers decided is supposed to encourage you to optimize.

 

[cbwjm]

The few times I've used floating ASIs, and mainly its with the new races like the dragonborn update, it's of course to focus my PC on what they should be good at. If my dragonborn is a wizard then I'll be increasing intelligence by +1 or +2. For the sake of argument, lets say I rolled an odd number for intelligence so I put a +1 in intelligence and have a couple more +1s to place. Depending on the character I might use these more to back up a roleplay aspect, is the character durable rather than dextrous, then I place a +1 into their constitution. Often, I'll place the final +1 into charisma, even if he doesn't have any charisma skills, I quite like making likeable characters and so I aim to have at least a +1 charisma bonus to represent that. If I think that the dragonborn wizard should be more perceptive than likeable, then that +1 will be going into wisdom. These do grant me a mechanical benefit, but the benefit is there to help back up the roleplay aspect or the image I have of the character.

 

[Lyxen]

Racial ASIs encouraged you to pick the "right" choice so that your math problem is more likely to beat the DM's math problem.

And there you are, this is a powergamer's game. Not that it's a fault, just pointing it out.

Just FYI, this is not the design intent of 5e, the intent is to have fun by telling stories, there is nothing there about "math problems" and "beating the DM". You can of course play that way if that is what you like in the game, it's just that it shows that it's a game where power matters and choosing the floating ASIs is a power choice.

Min-max-optimization was baked into the literal math of racial choice. Tasha's came out, every group I ran with switched to floating ASIs, and what did I see yet again? People were free from optimization based on which race gave their equation the best math to out-math the other guy's number and instead we got elf barbarians, goliath rogues, tiefling artificers, et al. It's more fun to sit at a table with build variety where the system doesn't nickle and dime you with penalties for not going with the math that the developers decided is supposed to encourage you to optimize.

Optimised implies seeking power. Again, feel free to do it, but please don't pretend that it's anything else.

 

[BookTenTiger]

And there you are, this is a powergamer's game. Not that it's a fault, just pointing it out.

Just FYI, this is not the design intent of 5e, the intent is to have fun by telling stories, there is nothing there about "math problems" and "beating the DM". You can of course play that way if that is what you like in the game, it's just that it shows that it's a game where power matters and choosing the floating ASIs is a power choice.



Optimised implies seeking power. Again, feel free to do it, but please don't pretend that it's anything else.

This is a + thread. If you disagree with the premise, please start your own.

 

[NaturalZero]

And there you are, this is a powergamer's game. Not that it's a fault, just pointing it out.

Sure, "powergaming" is when you have racial ASIs and some choices are more optimal. As it was originally designed.

Just FYI, this is not the design intent of 5e, the intent is to have fun by telling stories, there is nothing there about "math problems" and "beating the DM". You can of course play that way if that is what you like in the game, it's just that it shows that it's a game where power matters and choosing the floating ASIs is a power choice.

It shows that racial ability mods are a power choice because some are more optimal than others. If everyone has the exact same bonus, none are more optimal than others. It literally does that opposite of what you're claiming.

Optimised implies seeking power. Again, feel free to do it, but please don't pretend that it's anything else.

Right. Having racial ASIs is to encourage optimization. Floating ASIs removes math as an optimization point. If every option is +2, then none is more optimal. Feel free to not use floating ASIs but don't pretend that you're not the one trying to bake math optimization into the game or, as you put it, "powergaming."

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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."

I disagree.

The purpose of this thread is to collect some stories of why folks use Floating ASIs for reasons other than optimization and power gaming.

This is a + thread, because I'm hoping it won't fall into the same.old arguments. Instead, let's make this a positive thread about the different ways we have, or want to, use this optional rule!

So: what is your experience with using Tasha's? Why would you want to use it? What are your experiences with it?

I think that given that this thread is a + thread conducted according to your definitions, some guidance as to what you mean by "power gaming" and "optimisation" would be appreciated.
For many people, optimisation simply means "being better". Arranging the numbers so you have a better chance at what you want to do, picking spells that you think will be effective and so on.

This would probably not be considered the same as "power gaming", which many would take to mean "being best".

However, others, yourself included seem to have a minimum level of being better that you do not consider optimisation. An idea of where you draw that line would be appreciated. That way we can tell if our use of Tasha's new rules on ASI's meets your definitions or not, and thus whether they can be included in your thread.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I could see having associated values that are clearly defined as defaults. A way of saying that yes, your elf is not quite as dextrous as most and that may set you apart from others but that's okay. I could see getting rid of racially tied ability score bumps altogether, but there's only so many ways to distinguish one race from another. You could just make the differences completely fluff as well with no mechanical impact but I'm not sure that's a good thing either.

 

[Oofta]

The point, to me, is that it really isn't significant optimization nor power gaming, and that folks are lowering the bar just to apply that language.

The point, to me, is also that, if you are trying to make the point that these aren't bad behaviors, lowering the bar so you can accuse people of those behaviors is probably not going to make that point. If that's the goal, it is an ill-conceived technique.

So I can't say "there's nothing wrong with building your PC any way you want as long as the table is in agreement" without it somehow being an I'll conceived technique?

Saying that my personal preference for character building should not influence you one way or another is just a sneaky way of saying that you're doing it wrong?

I don't think the extra +1 is significant and never really cared. I've had dwarven wizards and rogues, half-orc monks and elven strength based paladins*. But a lot of people don't view things the way I do. I'm acknowledging that that's okay. I simply think people shouldn't feel the need to pretend that it doesn't really matter to them. People shouldn't feel the need to make excuses about playing what they want.

*Which of course died almost immediately because every elf I play is cursed.

 

[Ixal]

This is a + thread. If you disagree with the premise, please start your own.

What exactly is the premise of the thread? You specifically asked for examples other than optimization, but so far nearly everyone posted that they use it to optimize (get the +3).
The only example for something else than optimization was to use floating ASI to create a severely handicapped non-human (in whatever stat they are supposed to be good at).