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

[Scribe]

Except we are (or at least I am) not talking about players who “feel, just a little”, but rather about the subset of optimizers…whole tables of them…who used to be ok with 14’s and now will actually eject somebody from the table over it, to the point where somebody who wants a 14 previously was able to find a table but now can’t.

All I’m saying is that @MoonSong’s professed experience cannot be common enough to factor into an assessment of the impact of Tasha’s.

I think you would be surprised how many people tolerate (not accept) sub optimal choices.

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

 

[Bill Zebub]

If I had any instinct for self-preservation I would drop out of this debate before my head explodes.

I think you would be surprised how many people tolerate (not accept) sub optimal choices.

No, I would not be surprised. Like I said, I used to raid competitively, and I'm still an optimizer, and honestly I get really annoyed with D&D players who seem completely disinterested in mechanical effectiveness.

The only thing I'm questioning is how common it is for Tasha's to be the difference between a table that used to accept a 14 but no longer does. That the only thing going on here is a change in what the table will accept, to the point of rejecting a player who's only crime is having a character with a +2 primary modifier. And not just one player who suddenly changes their standards, but an entire table (or possibly even all the tables in the area...that wasn't clear to me).

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

I guess the one thing that does make a little bit of sense to me is that, pre-Tasha's, a player could argue they just really want to play race X. Post-Tasha's, it seems almost seems passive aggressive to insist on a 14 with a table who you know consists of hard core optimizers. (Although maybe more information is necessary: is the 14 necessary in order to have 14's or 15's in 4 different stats? Or is it just, "I don't want a 16"?)

So I could see a table being so fed up with that sort of attitude that they want to just get rid of that player. In which case it isn't really about Tasha's but about personality conflicts coming to the surface.

 

[Scribe]

So I could see a table being so fed up with that sort of attitude that they want to just get rid of that player. In which case it isn't really about Tasha's but about personality conflicts coming to the surface

Very much of the ASI debate is down to exactly this. Everyone should know by now it's not really the +1.

Like I said, I used to raid competitively, and I'm still an optimizer, and honestly I get really annoyed with D&D players who seem completely disinterested in mechanical effectiveness.

OK good, we have a basic framework then.

-Tasha's, it seems almost seems passive aggressive to insist on a 14 with a table who you know consists of hard core optimizers.

It's not about hard core optimization. If it was, they would all be VHuman.

Going back to the well.

WoW has.

Race
Class
Talents
Professions
Consumables
Raid and Party Comp.

All of those things (and a few more) directly impact your performance.

A hardcore raid, is going to dictate every one of those things.

A semi casual, is going to remove a few off the list, but will have players who may fit in a hardcore raid, and some who are total casuals.

A casual raid, is just a friends and family guild, that never keeps up on progression, and is a social group.

All are good and valid ways to play.

The hardcore table, is all Vhuman or some other minmax set of classes and races.

The casuals, are the ones that don't care about the mechanical impact of a +1.

The semi casual, I'm is the largest and most meaningful group.

So let's break it down.

I raid. I am fully consuming, proper talents, proper race, for PvE. My professions are not minmax.

I have someone else in my raid, same Race, Class, Talents, who gets a better party composition, but we share raid buffs. He has better PvE professions.

By virtue of consumables alone, a choice, that everyone can make, I out perform this guy EVERY week, for the last 4 months.

Now, imagine if his talents were jacked?

The argument here isn't 'well why not just expect everything' or why does this matter now.

The argument is that with floating, it's a 5 gold respec cost to correct your talents.

I'm not asking for 1500g in consumes, or race change for real $$, or releveling professions.

It's a real low bar to have correct attributes, so just do it.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[MoonSong]

I guess the one thing that does make a little bit of sense to me is that, pre-Tasha's, a player could argue they just really want to play race X. Post-Tasha's, it seems almost seems passive aggressive to insist on a 14 with a table who you know consists of hard core optimizers. (Although maybe more information is necessary: is the 14 necessary in order to have 14's or 15's in 4 different stats? Or is it just, "I don't want a 16"?)

Passive aggressive? about not wanting others to dictate my character? yikes.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Here's my thoughts:

Let's say we are doing an All Halfling game. We are restricting the players to the same set of racial abilities.

Because of the way 5e is designed, the players who choose Rogues, Dex-Based Fighters, etc are going to be the most effective.

With floating ASIs, characters who want to play as Halfling Wizards, Barbarians, etc can be just as effective.

I've been hitting my head against this for a long time now. It made absolutely no sense to me what so ever.

Today I realized a couple of things that I already knew but hadn't correlated yet. 5e expects that at 4th level you will have an 18 or 20 in your prime requisite. Since point buy is the encouraged method of attribute generation, this is easily achievable. Not only do you have a strong bias towards a mechanical advantage, you also aren't likely to have a particularly low attribute that you would want to mitigate. You don't have valleys to fill, only mountains to raise.

I am used to 1e. That puts me at some disadvantage, although I have run a short 5e game. In the game I play in there is a +2 bonus to one attribute according to race. There are no other attribute bonuses in the game besides from magic items or special boons. Also, we roll for attributes. While there is a chance to massage the numbers (raise highest to 16 or lowest to 8), the bonus is used to get two attributes to 13 or better, the highest even higher, or to raise a low number to 9-12, where there isn't a penalty or bonus. In order to get a significant bonus (+3 or better) you are going to need an 18 or better. Which, given we roll for attributes, is rare. So I and my group don't have the expectation that a +3 attribute bonus is necessary. Sure, it's great, especially at lower levels. Eventually the benefits of high level dwarf the benefits of high attributes, which is another difference that 5e brings. Attribute bonus is expected to exceed or match proficiency bonus in the class focus until the highest levels.

So having a wizard with a higher Dex than Int or a rogue with a higher Wis than Dex is no big deal. The character breadth that you talk about floating ASIs allowing you I have at my disposal. But I'm also not playing a game so focused on high attributes.

This isn't a criticism of 5e- the game is structured the way it's structured. Thinking on this, however, gives me little motivation against a floating ASI (not that I had a hate on for it to begin with). I would have attribute minimums for a given race (goliaths have STR 8 minimum, perhaps). I would also be open, nay require, two or three characteristics for each race that make them distinct from the others.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Passive aggressive? about not wanting others to dictate my character? yikes.

I don't know you and I don't know the circumstances so I have no idea how to evaluate your particular situation. Maybe the other players at the table are just crazy. Maybe there are other relationship factors at play you haven't shared. I don't know. And I don't really want to know.

But if there is nothing else going on, and nobody is being passive aggressive, and nobody is being unreasonable, and it is truly just a case that pre-Tasha's they were totally happy to have a slight non-optimizer at their table, but post-Tasha's a 14 is one bridge too far....then your case is such an extreme outlier that I just don't consider it worth factoring into a cost:benefit analysis of floating ASIs. (And, as @Scribe points out, I wonder why they haven't insisted on vHumans both pre- and post-Tasha's. It's a very strange situation.)

Sorry you had a bad experience.

 

[Scribe]

Today I realized a couple of things that I already knew but hadn't correlated yet. 5e expects that at 4th level you will have an 18 or 20 in your prime requisite.

Source please.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I've been hitting my head against this for a long time now. It made absolutely no sense to me what so ever.

Today I realized a couple of things that I already knew but hadn't correlated yet. 5e expects that at 4th level you will have an 18 or 20 in your prime requisite. Since point buy is the encouraged method of attribute generation, this is easily achievable. Not only do you have a strong bias towards a mechanical advantage, you also aren't likely to have a particularly low attribute that you would want to mitigate. You don't have valleys to fill, only mountains to raise.

I am used to 1e. That puts me at some disadvantage, although I have run a short 5e game. In the game I play in there is a +2 bonus to one attribute according to race. There are no other attribute bonuses in the game besides from magic items or special boons. Also, we roll for attributes. While there is a chance to massage the numbers (raise highest to 16 or lowest to 8), the bonus is used to get two attributes to 13 or better, the highest even higher, or to raise a low number to 9-12, where there isn't a penalty or bonus. In order to get a significant bonus (+3 or better) you are going to need an 18 or better. Which, given we roll for attributes, is rare. So I and my group don't have the expectation that a +3 attribute bonus is necessary. Sure, it's great, especially at lower levels. Eventually the benefits of high level dwarf the benefits of high attributes, which is another difference that 5e brings. Attribute bonus is expected to exceed or match proficiency bonus in the class focus until the highest levels.

So having a wizard with a higher Dex than Int or a rogue with a higher Wis than Dex is no big deal. The character breadth that you talk about floating ASIs allowing you I have at my disposal. But I'm also not playing a game so focused on high attributes.

This isn't a criticism of 5e- the game is structured the way it's structured. Thinking on this, however, gives me little motivation against a floating ASI (not that I had a hate on for it to begin with). I would have attribute minimums for a given race (goliaths have STR 8 minimum, perhaps). I would also be open, nay require, two or three characteristics for each race that make them distinct from the others.

Can you say more about "5e expects that at 4th level you will have an 18 or 20 in your prime requisite." I'm not seeing how that is an expectation from the rest of what you typed.

EDIT: ninja'd by @Scribe

 

[Baron Opal II]

Source please.

The 5e PHB.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Can you say more about "5e expects that at 4th level you will have an 18 or 20 in your prime requisite." I'm not seeing how that is an expectation from the rest of what you typed.

EDIT: ninja'd by @Scribe

Huh, this seemed pretty obvious to me- give me a minute.