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

[Minigiant]

I don’t get it. The DM ultimately is the one who decides if the monsters get hostile and attack. How was said DM “actively supporting” your attempts to talk/negotiate and yet you ended up with “only fights”?

Because if your fights take double the time, you half less time for other stuff and are more likely to skip or rush things or end sessions at bad points. Less likely to hit exploration and social moments with fresh minds.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Personally, I agree, but Wizards is actively stripping out those things, and making them more generic to the point where your race is a few special rules. Its being demonstrated over and over in the newer books and UA's.

This is another reason why I support Level Up. Much better origin system than anything WotC has ever come up with. I dont even mind moving the ASIs to background. The heritages matter on their own.

 

[Scribe]

This is another reason why I support Level Up. Much better origin system than anything WotC has ever come up with. I dont even mind moving the ASIs to background. The heritages matter on their own.

Certainly 'build your own' is a better way than we are going to end up with out of Wizards.

 

[Campbell]

The funny thing about the floating ASIs is that it eliminates the ability to play against type.

There is no longer an option to not follow standard tropes because those tropes have been destroyed by the rule.

The idea that it's only playing against type if you are mechanically disadvantaged to do so is ridiculous. There is no virtue in mechanical disadvantage.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The idea that it's only playing against type if you are mechanically disadvantaged to do so is ridiculous. There is no virtue in mechanical disadvantage.

I'm pretty sure the implication is more that there's sin in seeking mechanical advantage.

No one cares is someone is disadvantaged as long as they're not advantaged in the least.

 

[Scribe]

The idea that it's only playing against type if you are mechanically disadvantaged to do so is ridiculous. There is no virtue in mechanical disadvantage.

I'm sorry but what disadvantage is this?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

In part, because of the way those old modules were written. The monsters barely had any motivations, and so the DM didn't have much to work with. At least that's what it seemed; I haven't read the modules myself.
Plus, many of the monsters weren't intelligent.

Also, we actually had two DMs running these modules who would switch off. One DM was much more into RPing than combat and the other was much more into by-the-books combat. (Interestingly, both of them had started with 1e: one was a kid when the books were first published, and the other, who is much younger, was raised by gamer parents).

Ah, running modules purely as written, let alone old modules adapted to a new edition is... tricky. I haven't met a published adventure that I didn't enhance/change in some way. Giving at least some of the monsters some motivations might have helped the group achieve what they were looking for. Easy for me to Monday morning quarterback it based on limited info, though.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Because if your fights take double the time, you half less time for other stuff and are more likely to skip or rush things or end sessions at bad points. Less likely to hit exploration and social moments with fresh minds.

But... there's always next session? Or the ability of a DM to cut a combat short by having monsters flee, surrender, attempt to parlay, whatever. Am I missing something with your comment?

 

[Faolyn]

Ah, running modules purely as written, let alone old modules adapted to a new edition is... tricky. I haven't met a published adventure that I didn't enhance/change in some way. Giving at least some of the monsters some motivations might have helped the group achieve what they were looking for. Easy for me to Monday morning quarterback it based on limited info, though.

Yeah. We were doing it because we thought it would be fun to go through the old series, and neither DM made any modifications that I know of.

Whereas I basically rewrote more than half of Curse of Strahd.

 

[Oofta]

Did you miss the bit where I said I based what I said on actual games I've played and run? I'm not theorycrafting here. Based on my personal experience, a 5% increases can be very useful.

And clearly, one size doesn't fit all. I'm not saying that people should always put the bonus in their highest stat to get a +3. I've never said that. In fact, I've said one benefit of a floating ASI is so people can bump up other stats, so you can play a charismatic fighter or a healthy wizard if you wanted to--or a strong gnome or a smart orc.

Based on my personal experience I haven't seen that big of a difference.

So who's right? Honestly? Who cares. We have no way of getting a definitive answer so I see no reason to discuss it further.