That is objectively not true. There no race/class combinations not allowed in 5th Edition. If you chose to not play a particular combination, that is on you, not the rule set.
It punishes you in game terms if you are, say, a fighter and have less strength because you chose a race that gives ASI's that don't work well with your class.
Yes, you can pick any class you want, it is allowed.
However, if you prefer a certain race due to flavor or because you enjoyed reading about them in fantasy, your effective amount of optimal classes should NOT go down. But with 5e's rules in the category, it does.
Also, as others have mentioned, newbs who do not understand how the ASI's by race in the PHB work might choose a class that is not as good in gameplay, and that, in my opinion is a design flaw in the system.
The power level of certain race/class combinations will not majorly unbalance your character. It can still mess things up though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
That is objectively not true. There no race/class combinations not allowed in 5th Edition. If you chose to not play a particular combination, that is on you, not the rule set.
It punishes you in game terms if you are, say, a fighter and have less strength because you chose a race that gives ASI's that don't work well with your class.
Yes, you can pick any class you want, it is allowed.
However, if you prefer a certain race due to flavor or because you enjoyed reading about them in fantasy, your effective amount of optimal classes should NOT go down. But with 5e's rules in the category, it does.
Also, as others have mentioned, newbs who do not understand how the ASI's by race in the PHB work might choose a class that is not as good in gameplay, and that, in my opinion is a design flaw in the system.
The power level of certain race/class combinations will not majorly unbalance your character. It can still mess things up though.
It can’t really “mess up” anything. Why are “optimal classes” the only valid ones to choose? Are you really telling me that starting with a 15 instead of a 16 in your main stat is really that big of a deal? Because it’s not. You don’t “lose” anything that way, it just takes a couple of extra levels before you max out your score is all. Stop acting like it’s some major handicap or something to be only 80-90% optimized instead of 100% optimized.
That is objectively not true. There no race/class combinations not allowed in 5th Edition. If you chose to not play a particular combination, that is on you, not the rule set.
You are correct, but having ASI’s ties to race has its issues and for a brand new player who knows zero about the game they are not going to “play against type” because they don’t know what type is, but could accidentally “play against type” with fixed ASI’s and choosing a race/class combo that makes it a tiny bit harder.
Tasha’s helped with this, but putting the starting ASI’s as part of level 1 class selection helps remove the issue. If a new player picks an orc wizard and at level 1 wizard they get “Academic Training” that gives them the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to ability scores of their choice (and the “quick build” recommendations steer you to using one of those to INT ) it’s seems a better option than what we have now and the threads and threads of arguments. And it would be limited to character level one as part of class selection so there are no multiclassing shenanigans.
OH NO! Not *gasps* “a tiny bit harder!!” Whatever shall we do?!? Heaven forbid we be… *looks over left shoulder, looks over right shoulder* “challenged….” 🤨 (It’s not the end of the world folks.)
That is objectively not true. There no race/class combinations not allowed in 5th Edition. If you chose to not play a particular combination, that is on you, not the rule set.
You are correct, but having ASI’s ties to race has its issues and for a brand new player who knows zero about the game they are not going to “play against type” because they don’t know what type is, but could accidentally “play against type” with fixed ASI’s and choosing a race/class combo that makes it a tiny bit harder.
Tasha’s helped with this, but putting the starting ASI’s as part of level 1 class selection helps remove the issue. If a new player picks an orc wizard and at level 1 wizard they get “Academic Training” that gives them the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to ability scores of their choice (and the “quick build” recommendations steer you to using one of those to INT ) it’s seems a better option than what we have now and the threads and threads of arguments. And it would be limited to character level one as part of class selection so there are no multiclassing shenanigans.
OH NO! Not *gasps* “a tiny bit harder!!” Whatever shall we do?!? Heaven forbid we be… *looks over left shoulder, looks over right shoulder* “challenged….” 🤨 (It’s not the end of the world folks.)
Never said it was the end of the world but it could help keep new players in the game. Nothing wrong with starting with a 15 instead of 16. If you know what you are doing, great have at it. But maybe, just maybe, a new player might think “why does Sam get to take sentinel or other feat at 4th level but I can’t because X stat was lower so I’m not performing or having as much versatility as they are? Someone should have told me to do Y race instead of Z!”
That is objectively not true. There no race/class combinations not allowed in 5th Edition. If you chose to not play a particular combination, that is on you, not the rule set.
You are correct, but having ASI’s ties to race has its issues and for a brand new player who knows zero about the game they are not going to “play against type” because they don’t know what type is, but could accidentally “play against type” with fixed ASI’s and choosing a race/class combo that makes it a tiny bit harder.
Tasha’s helped with this, but putting the starting ASI’s as part of level 1 class selection helps remove the issue. If a new player picks an orc wizard and at level 1 wizard they get “Academic Training” that gives them the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to ability scores of their choice (and the “quick build” recommendations steer you to using one of those to INT ) it’s seems a better option than what we have now and the threads and threads of arguments. And it would be limited to character level one as part of class selection so there are no multi-classing shenanigans.
This was covered back in post #19, but the short version is: Anything that gets between a new player deciding to try the game, and actually playing it, is bad. It's why games have pre-generated characters. So while there are reasons to be pro-floating ASIs, new players aren't one of them. It's one more step between "Looks interesting" and "You are sitting in a tavern..."
"Could I be out of touch? ... No, it's the kids who are wrong!"
Well, I guess in this case it's more like: "Is my understanding of the game significantly nonstandard? ... No, it's the kids who are wrong!"
At this point I think we have to accept that the "truth" about optimization doesn't actually matter -- what matters is the way players experience it. And it's clear that "low score = bad character" is, if not the predominant understanding, at least a sizeable portion thereof. And what's more, I would hazard that those of us with the other understanding -- which is to say, those who don't think you need to optimize this way -- would not be *harmed* by some sort of rectification. Would you agree?
That is objectively not true. There no race/class combinations not allowed in 5th Edition. If you chose to not play a particular combination, that is on you, not the rule set.
You are correct, but having ASI’s ties to race has its issues and for a brand new player who knows zero about the game they are not going to “play against type” because they don’t know what type is, but could accidentally “play against type” with fixed ASI’s and choosing a race/class combo that makes it a tiny bit harder.
Tasha’s helped with this, but putting the starting ASI’s as part of level 1 class selection helps remove the issue. If a new player picks an orc wizard and at level 1 wizard they get “Academic Training” that gives them the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to ability scores of their choice (and the “quick build” recommendations steer you to using one of those to INT ) it’s seems a better option than what we have now and the threads and threads of arguments. And it would be limited to character level one as part of class selection so there are no multiclassing shenanigans.
OH NO! Not *gasps* “a tiny bit harder!!” Whatever shall we do?!? Heaven forbid we be… *looks over left shoulder, looks over right shoulder* “challenged….” 🤨 (It’s not the end of the world folks.)
Never said it was the end of the world but it could help keep new players in the game. Nothing wrong with starting with a 15 instead of 16. If you know what you are doing, great have at it. But maybe, just maybe, a new player might think “why does Sam get to take sentinel or other feat at 4th level but I can’t because X stat was lower so I’m not performing or having as much versatility as they are? Someone should have told me to do Y race instead of Z!”
1: Neither we nor the rules are responsible for other people's thoughts.
2: Not-Sam can still take Sentinel.
3: If we base the rules on attempting to prevent the scenario of a player ever thinking that another character can do something thier character can not, then all characters must be equal in every single way. Every character in every game at every table at all times must be identical, just so that it isn't technically true that another character can do something yours can not. And even that won't prevent people from thinking it, because people think things that are factually incorrect every day. Also, see #1.
4: People new to things make sub-optimal choices about those things. That's why experience is valued, in real life & table-top games.
5: You can state "at some time X may happen" about literally every thing, and be correct. It is not a justification to take any action without knowing the odds that it will happen & the consequences if it does. You have given neither.
I’m just curious if there is a correlation between players who prefer rolling for stats and living with the outcomes and those who prefer fixed racial ASI’s? maybe correlation is not the right word but I think you know what I mean.
I’m in only one campaign and have only played one character in 5E and we rolled for stats. One of mine was a 4 so I dumped it in CHA, made a hermit who became a Druid (circle of the land:Mountain) and I have no issues. We just hit level 13 a few sessions ago. I also played 1E AD&D were we rolled 3d6 (in order: STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, CHA) and decided after we rolled what class to play. So I’m no stranger to playing suboptimal characters.
But it made me think that maybe those who don’t like rolling for stats because it can create imbalance between characters are the same ones who like the floating ASI’s because fixed ones can also create imbalance between characters (although at a much smaller disparity, presumably).
I roll for stats, have on every campaign I’ve been in since the early ‘90s, have played hundreds of characters over my lifetime, have played a little over half a dozen in various 5e campaigns, and I prefer fixed racial ASIs because I feel it adds something important to my character’s identity.
That is objectively not true. There no race/class combinations not allowed in 5th Edition. If you chose to not play a particular combination, that is on you, not the rule set.
You are correct, but having ASI’s ties to race has its issues and for a brand new player who knows zero about the game they are not going to “play against type” because they don’t know what type is, but could accidentally “play against type” with fixed ASI’s and choosing a race/class combo that makes it a tiny bit harder.
Tasha’s helped with this, but putting the starting ASI’s as part of level 1 class selection helps remove the issue. If a new player picks an orc wizard and at level 1 wizard they get “Academic Training” that gives them the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to ability scores of their choice (and the “quick build” recommendations steer you to using one of those to INT ) it’s seems a better option than what we have now and the threads and threads of arguments. And it would be limited to character level one as part of class selection so there are no multiclassing shenanigans.
OH NO! Not *gasps* “a tiny bit harder!!” Whatever shall we do?!? Heaven forbid we be… *looks over left shoulder, looks over right shoulder* “challenged….” 🤨 (It’s not the end of the world folks.)
Never said it was the end of the world but it could help keep new players in the game. Nothing wrong with starting with a 15 instead of 16. If you know what you are doing, great have at it. But maybe, just maybe, a new player might think “why does Sam get to take sentinel or other feat at 4th level but I can’t because X stat was lower so I’m not performing or having as much versatility as they are? Someone should have told me to do Y race instead of Z!”
You can totally take the feat instead of the stat bump. What is this fixation on maxing out main stats. In 2e, whatever stats you got at creation were your permanent lifetime stats. Being able to increase your Abilities is such a luxury compared to older editions. Maybe that’s why I don’t sweat it so much, I see it as an extra perk instead of an entitlement. 🤷♂️
"Could I be out of touch? ... No, it's the kids who are wrong!"
Well, I guess in this case it's more like: "Is my understanding of the game significantly nonstandard? ... No, it's the kids who are wrong!"
At this point I think we have to accept that the "truth" about optimization doesn't actually matter -- what matters is the way players experience it. And it's clear that "low score = bad character" is, if not the predominant understanding, at least a sizeable portion thereof. And what's more, I would hazard that those of us with the other understanding -- which is to say, those who don't think you need to optimize this way -- would not be *harmed* by some sort of rectification. Would you agree?
I prefer to try to educate and enlighten people to the realization that low stats ≠ bad character.
I’m just curious if there is a correlation between players who prefer rolling for stats and living with the outcomes and those who prefer fixed racial ASI’s? maybe correlation is not the right word but I think you know what I mean.
I’m in only one campaign and have only played one character in 5E and we rolled for stats. One of mine was a 4 so I dumped it in CHA, made a hermit who became a Druid (circle of the land:Mountain) and I have no issues. We just hit level 13 a few sessions ago. I also played 1E AD&D were we rolled 3d6 (in order: STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, CHA) and decided after we rolled what class to play. So I’m no stranger to playing suboptimal characters.
But it made me think that maybe those who don’t like rolling for stats because it can create imbalance between characters are the same ones who like the floating ASI’s because fixed ones can also create imbalance between characters (although at a much smaller disparity, presumably).
Speaking for only for myself, I prefer point buy because it's balanced across characters & lets you make the character you want. Especially with odd values being mostly dead zones in 5E, and the array is too much of a straightjacket for me. Which also (again, for me) deals with the aspect of floating ASIs that some people bring up, the character deciding what they wanted to be good at. For me, that is covered by where you spend your points / assign your rolls. I liked fixed ASIs because, for me, they as much a part of the race as flight, darkvision, etc. One naturally gets wings (30' of Flying), the other naturally gets improved / more muscle mass (+1 Strength).
That is objectively not true. There no race/class combinations not allowed in 5th Edition. If you chose to not play a particular combination, that is on you, not the rule set.
It punishes you in game terms if you are, say, a fighter and have less strength because you chose a race that gives ASI's that don't work well with your class.
Yes, you can pick any class you want, it is allowed.
However, if you prefer a certain race due to flavor or because you enjoyed reading about them in fantasy, your effective amount of optimal classes should NOT go down. But with 5e's rules in the category, it does.
Also, as others have mentioned, newbs who do not understand how the ASI's by race in the PHB work might choose a class that is not as good in gameplay, and that, in my opinion is a design flaw in the system.
The power level of certain race/class combinations will not majorly unbalance your character. It can still mess things up though.
It can’t really “mess up” anything. Why are “optimal classes” the only valid ones to choose? Are you really telling me that starting with a 15 instead of a 16 in your main stat is really that big of a deal? Because it’s not. You don’t “lose” anything that way, it just takes a couple of extra levels before you max out your score is all. Stop acting like it’s some major handicap or something to be only 80-90% optimized instead of 100% optimized.
Would you rather deal 1d8+2 damage, or 1d8+3?
The difference is small, but it can still be important.
Also, "optimal classes" as you put it, are certainly not the only ones you should take. I explained that racial tied ASI's are the flaw with the system, that IT forces choices between classes that work better with races, or slightly less good ones. Essentially forcing you into a situation between more fun, or a bit better optimized character.
This, is what are we are complaining about when we talk about racial ASI's, not the other way around.
I’m just curious if there is a correlation between players who prefer rolling for stats and living with the outcomes and those who prefer fixed racial ASI’s? maybe correlation is not the right word but I think you know what I mean.
I’m in only one campaign and have only played one character in 5E and we rolled for stats. One of mine was a 4 so I dumped it in CHA, made a hermit who became a Druid (circle of the land:Mountain) and I have no issues. We just hit level 13 a few sessions ago. I also played 1E AD&D were we rolled 3d6 (in order: STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, CHA) and decided after we rolled what class to play. So I’m no stranger to playing suboptimal characters.
But it made me think that maybe those who don’t like rolling for stats because it can create imbalance between characters are the same ones who like the floating ASI’s because fixed ones can also create imbalance between characters (although at a much smaller disparity, presumably).
I am a stat roller and have been since I started playing back in the 80's. I actually like the floating ASI's over fixed and I think that with 5.5 (or what ever WotC calls it) starting ASI's should no longer be tied to race at all and just be part of character building. Just like selecting Background and Class.
My preferred fix for racial ASIs is to just remove them: you should just look at your stats and ask yourself "What race/class fits?" I promise you, most people will not look at Str 16, Dex 9, Con 15, and decide it sounds like a halfling, and if they do... so what?
That is objectively not true. There no race/class combinations not allowed in 5th Edition. If you chose to not play a particular combination, that is on you, not the rule set.
You are correct, but having ASI’s ties to race has its issues and for a brand new player who knows zero about the game they are not going to “play against type” because they don’t know what type is, but could accidentally “play against type” with fixed ASI’s and choosing a race/class combo that makes it a tiny bit harder.
Tasha’s helped with this, but putting the starting ASI’s as part of level 1 class selection helps remove the issue. If a new player picks an orc wizard and at level 1 wizard they get “Academic Training” that gives them the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to ability scores of their choice (and the “quick build” recommendations steer you to using one of those to INT ) it’s seems a better option than what we have now and the threads and threads of arguments. And it would be limited to character level one as part of class selection so there are no multiclassing shenanigans.
OH NO! Not *gasps* “a tiny bit harder!!” Whatever shall we do?!? Heaven forbid we be… *looks over left shoulder, looks over right shoulder* “challenged….” 🤨 (It’s not the end of the world folks.)
Never said it was the end of the world but it could help keep new players in the game. Nothing wrong with starting with a 15 instead of 16. If you know what you are doing, great have at it. But maybe, just maybe, a new player might think “why does Sam get to take sentinel or other feat at 4th level but I can’t because X stat was lower so I’m not performing or having as much versatility as they are? Someone should have told me to do Y race instead of Z!”
You can totally take the feat instead of the stat bump. What is this fixation on maxing out main stats. In 2e, whatever stats you got at creation were your permanent lifetime stats. Being able to increase your Abilities is such a luxury compared to older editions. Maybe that’s why I don’t sweat it so much, I see it as an extra perk instead of an entitlement. 🤷♂️
When 3E came out I was excited that all the races could be all the classes, compared to older editions. And maybe all the concern for bigger modifiers and maxing stats came from there, with the Base Attack Bonuses increasing as you leveled, etc... Bounded Accuracy helps, but there is still the pull toward getting the best bonus. And the allure of just playing the class/race combo you want without the feeling that you could just be missing out.
And people play D&D differently than older editions, well at least I know I and my group does. Earlier editions we just played modules and little homebrew (a lot of dungeon crawls). But now, some groups play 90% roleplay, 5% exploration, 5% combat while others are the exact opposite with 90% combat and little RP and Exploration. And a vast amount of differences in between. So for some, getting that extra +1 from maxing a stat is more enjoyable than sitting at a 17 or18, but having a feat.
And I started out on your side of the camp, with liking fixed ASI's and you just had to work a little harder if you wanted to play that Half-Orc 4 Elements Monk. But I've since changed my mind on the issue. My preference is Point Buy with floating ASI's. But my DM likes rolling so that's what we did and you lived with the consequences. He also doesn't allow multiclassing and furry or feathered or scaled races, so mainly PHB races and a few others. And I'm good with that.
Would you have a problem if they put the starting ASI's with class or background selection and not with races?
That is objectively not true. There no race/class combinations not allowed in 5th Edition. If you chose to not play a particular combination, that is on you, not the rule set.
It punishes you in game terms if you are, say, a fighter and have less strength because you chose a race that gives ASI's that don't work well with your class.
Yes, you can pick any class you want, it is allowed.
However, if you prefer a certain race due to flavor or because you enjoyed reading about them in fantasy, your effective amount of optimal classes should NOT go down. But with 5e's rules in the category, it does.
Also, as others have mentioned, newbs who do not understand how the ASI's by race in the PHB work might choose a class that is not as good in gameplay, and that, in my opinion is a design flaw in the system.
The power level of certain race/class combinations will not majorly unbalance your character. It can still mess things up though.
It can’t really “mess up” anything. Why are “optimal classes” the only valid ones to choose? Are you really telling me that starting with a 15 instead of a 16 in your main stat is really that big of a deal? Because it’s not. You don’t “lose” anything that way, it just takes a couple of extra levels before you max out your score is all. Stop acting like it’s some major handicap or something to be only 80-90% optimized instead of 100% optimized.
Would you rather deal 1d8+2 damage, or 1d8+3?
The difference is small, but it can still be important.
Also, "optimal classes" as you put it, are certainly not the only ones you should take. I explained that racial tied ASI's are the flaw with the system, that IT forces choices between classes that work better with races, or slightly less good ones. Essentially forcing you into a situation between more fun, or a bit better optimized character.
This, is what are we are complaining about when we talk about racial ASI's, not the other way around.
The difference between +2 and +3 is so small to be negligible.
And IT doesn’t force any such thing, peoples’ own small mindedness makes them think they are forced into one thing or another. Break the shackles and free yourself li’l bruddah!
It punishes you in game terms if you are, say, a fighter and have less strength because you chose a race that gives ASI's that don't work well with your class.
Yes, you can pick any class you want, it is allowed.
However, if you prefer a certain race due to flavor or because you enjoyed reading about them in fantasy, your effective amount of optimal classes should NOT go down. But with 5e's rules in the category, it does.
Also, as others have mentioned, newbs who do not understand how the ASI's by race in the PHB work might choose a class that is not as good in gameplay, and that, in my opinion is a design flaw in the system.
The power level of certain race/class combinations will not majorly unbalance your character. It can still mess things up though.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.It can’t really “mess up” anything. Why are “optimal classes” the only valid ones to choose? Are you really telling me that starting with a 15 instead of a 16 in your main stat is really that big of a deal? Because it’s not. You don’t “lose” anything that way, it just takes a couple of extra levels before you max out your score is all. Stop acting like it’s some major handicap or something to be only 80-90% optimized instead of 100% optimized.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
OH NO! Not *gasps* “a tiny bit harder!!” Whatever shall we do?!? Heaven forbid we be… *looks over left shoulder, looks over right shoulder* “challenged….” 🤨 (It’s not the end of the world folks.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Never said it was the end of the world but it could help keep new players in the game. Nothing wrong with starting with a 15 instead of 16. If you know what you are doing, great have at it. But maybe, just maybe, a new player might think “why does Sam get to take sentinel or other feat at 4th level but I can’t because X stat was lower so I’m not performing or having as much versatility as they are? Someone should have told me to do Y race instead of Z!”
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
This was covered back in post #19, but the short version is: Anything that gets between a new player deciding to try the game, and actually playing it, is bad. It's why games have pre-generated characters. So while there are reasons to be pro-floating ASIs, new players aren't one of them. It's one more step between "Looks interesting" and "You are sitting in a tavern..."
"Could I be out of touch? ... No, it's the kids who are wrong!"
Well, I guess in this case it's more like: "Is my understanding of the game significantly nonstandard? ... No, it's the kids who are wrong!"
At this point I think we have to accept that the "truth" about optimization doesn't actually matter -- what matters is the way players experience it. And it's clear that "low score = bad character" is, if not the predominant understanding, at least a sizeable portion thereof. And what's more, I would hazard that those of us with the other understanding -- which is to say, those who don't think you need to optimize this way -- would not be *harmed* by some sort of rectification. Would you agree?
1: Neither we nor the rules are responsible for other people's thoughts.
2: Not-Sam can still take Sentinel.
3: If we base the rules on attempting to prevent the scenario of a player ever thinking that another character can do something thier character can not, then all characters must be equal in every single way. Every character in every game at every table at all times must be identical, just so that it isn't technically true that another character can do something yours can not. And even that won't prevent people from thinking it, because people think things that are factually incorrect every day. Also, see #1.
4: People new to things make sub-optimal choices about those things. That's why experience is valued, in real life & table-top games.
5: You can state "at some time X may happen" about literally every thing, and be correct. It is not a justification to take any action without knowing the odds that it will happen & the consequences if it does. You have given neither.
I’m just curious if there is a correlation between players who prefer rolling for stats and living with the outcomes and those who prefer fixed racial ASI’s? maybe correlation is not the right word but I think you know what I mean.
I’m in only one campaign and have only played one character in 5E and we rolled for stats. One of mine was a 4 so I dumped it in CHA, made a hermit who became a Druid (circle of the land:Mountain) and I have no issues. We just hit level 13 a few sessions ago. I also played 1E AD&D were we rolled 3d6 (in order: STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, CHA) and decided after we rolled what class to play. So I’m no stranger to playing suboptimal characters.
But it made me think that maybe those who don’t like rolling for stats because it can create imbalance between characters are the same ones who like the floating ASI’s because fixed ones can also create imbalance between characters (although at a much smaller disparity, presumably).
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I roll for stats, have on every campaign I’ve been in since the early ‘90s, have played hundreds of characters over my lifetime, have played a little over half a dozen in various 5e campaigns, and I prefer fixed racial ASIs because I feel it adds something important to my character’s identity.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You can totally take the feat instead of the stat bump. What is this fixation on maxing out main stats. In 2e, whatever stats you got at creation were your permanent lifetime stats. Being able to increase your Abilities is such a luxury compared to older editions. Maybe that’s why I don’t sweat it so much, I see it as an extra perk instead of an entitlement. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I prefer to try to educate and enlighten people to the realization that low stats ≠ bad character.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Speaking for only for myself, I prefer point buy because it's balanced across characters & lets you make the character you want. Especially with odd values being mostly dead zones in 5E, and the array is too much of a straightjacket for me. Which also (again, for me) deals with the aspect of floating ASIs that some people bring up, the character deciding what they wanted to be good at. For me, that is covered by where you spend your points / assign your rolls. I liked fixed ASIs because, for me, they as much a part of the race as flight, darkvision, etc. One naturally gets wings (30' of Flying), the other naturally gets improved / more muscle mass (+1 Strength).
Would you rather deal 1d8+2 damage, or 1d8+3?
The difference is small, but it can still be important.
Also, "optimal classes" as you put it, are certainly not the only ones you should take. I explained that racial tied ASI's are the flaw with the system, that IT forces choices between classes that work better with races, or slightly less good ones. Essentially forcing you into a situation between more fun, or a bit better optimized character.
This, is what are we are complaining about when we talk about racial ASI's, not the other way around.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I am a stat roller and have been since I started playing back in the 80's. I actually like the floating ASI's over fixed and I think that with 5.5 (or what ever WotC calls it) starting ASI's should no longer be tied to race at all and just be part of character building. Just like selecting Background and Class.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
My preferred fix for racial ASIs is to just remove them: you should just look at your stats and ask yourself "What race/class fits?" I promise you, most people will not look at Str 16, Dex 9, Con 15, and decide it sounds like a halfling, and if they do... so what?
So everyone plays Custom Lineage. Why even have the category?
Let's pretend you're not asking that rhetorically... (and skate right past the history of problematic fantasy tropes, Gygax's personal views, etc.)
Many D&D players get really stuck on "tradition." That's basically it.
(I wouldn't have the "race" category, because it is old-and-busted. Though maybe that's the "hot take" version which would go in the other thread.)
When 3E came out I was excited that all the races could be all the classes, compared to older editions. And maybe all the concern for bigger modifiers and maxing stats came from there, with the Base Attack Bonuses increasing as you leveled, etc... Bounded Accuracy helps, but there is still the pull toward getting the best bonus. And the allure of just playing the class/race combo you want without the feeling that you could just be missing out.
And people play D&D differently than older editions, well at least I know I and my group does. Earlier editions we just played modules and little homebrew (a lot of dungeon crawls). But now, some groups play 90% roleplay, 5% exploration, 5% combat while others are the exact opposite with 90% combat and little RP and Exploration. And a vast amount of differences in between. So for some, getting that extra +1 from maxing a stat is more enjoyable than sitting at a 17 or18, but having a feat.
And I started out on your side of the camp, with liking fixed ASI's and you just had to work a little harder if you wanted to play that Half-Orc 4 Elements Monk. But I've since changed my mind on the issue. My preference is Point Buy with floating ASI's. But my DM likes rolling so that's what we did and you lived with the consequences. He also doesn't allow multiclassing and furry or feathered or scaled races, so mainly PHB races and a few others. And I'm good with that.
Would you have a problem if they put the starting ASI's with class or background selection and not with races?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The difference between +2 and +3 is so small to be negligible.
And IT doesn’t force any such thing, peoples’ own small mindedness makes them think they are forced into one thing or another. Break the shackles and free yourself li’l bruddah!
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting