D&D 5E Hate ASI's ?

Wulffolk · Mar 23, 2017

Does anybody else dislike Ability Score Increases? My main problem with ASI's is that so many characters end up with the exact same stats, especially combined with the standard array of scores, and the opportunity to put multiple ASI's into improving one ability. It irks me that every Wizard ends up with 20 Intelligence, and every Barbarian has 20 Strength, or Fighters that always have a 20 in either Strength or Dexterity, etc.

I am thinking that limiting each ability to a max of +2 points of ASI, combined with my preferred method of random ability generation, might be a good idea. My method to get starting abilities is to roll 3d6 and replace any one of those dice with a 4. This generates abilities between 6 - 16, with a curve that is slightly above average, but still allowing for max abilities to be uncommon and very low scores to be rare.

Racial adjustments could allow for an 18, plus one ASI could still allow for a 20, but it would be less automatic. Even standard Humans with a 16 +1 for race could eventually get a 20 with +2 from ASI and +1 more from a feat.

However, the benefit I see to this is that not every character will roll a 16 amongst their starting stats, so not every hero will end up being the "optimized" powerhouse we tend to see now. There could potentially be a difference between high level builds without that difference being crippling. Not every Barbarian should be as strong as Conan, after all. Some Wizards should be smarter than others even when 20th level.

What do you think?

transtemporal · Mar 23, 2017

Meh. Just don't use point buy and you'll avoid uniformity. If its reality you're trying to model, then it should just be straight 3d6, play em as they lay. The PCs are supposed to be exceptional individuals though, we're not playing accountants & doctors.

Eubani · Mar 23, 2017

My main issue is with the feat side and that is that both combat and non combat feats get chosen from the same limited pool and guess what that most often means.

CapnZapp · Mar 23, 2017

Wulffolk said:
It irks me that every Wizard ends up with 20 Intelligence, and every Barbarian has 20 Strength, or Fighters that always have a 20 in either Strength or Dexterity, etc.

That's because the game ties your ability scores to your relevant game stats.

If you make it so your to hit value, spell save DC, or weapon damage bonus doesn't depend on your ability score, then you won't get this every wizard is Int 20; problem solved.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

The Crimson Binome · Mar 23, 2017

Wulffolk said:
However, the benefit I see to this is that not every character will roll a 16 amongst their starting stats, so not every hero will end up being the "optimized" powerhouse we tend to see now. There could potentially be a difference between high level builds without that difference being crippling. Not every Barbarian should be as strong as Conan, after all. Some Wizards should be smarter than others even when 20th level.

It would be nice if there was some variation among high-level members of the same class, but it's not cool to give one player a character that is strictly worse, and it's especially not cool to tie that into a single die roll that you make before the game even begins. Telling a player that their character is objectively inferior, right from the start, is not a good way to get them enthusiastic about playing (at least, with most players).

The way that the game is set up, and has been set up for quite a while now, is that each class has one stat which is its raw power stat. A wizard with higher Int is simply better than a wizard with lower Int, and it would take a massive difference in Dex and Con to overcome that disparity. It would be nice if they'd designed the game in such a way that there could be three or four different ways to build a wizard, but they didn't do that, so we're left with the reality where every wizard ends up with 20 Int.

It could be worse. In 3E and 4E, stats didn't cap out at 20, so the correct way to build a wizard was to throw every boost into Int at every opportunity. At least now that stats are limited to 20, a wizard can diversify after that point; and if you didn't roll an 18 at the start, then you can still catch up by level 8 without suffering much in the long run.

Also, keep in mind that a natural 18 is only a 1-in-216 chance on 3d6, so you're going to get nine or ten of those in a small city of population ~2000. If your level 20 PC archmage isn't even in the top ten of a small city, then that would be kind of weird.

UngeheuerLich · Mar 23, 2017

We use exactly the same rolling method as you. 3d6 replace lowest with 4 or 3d6 drop lowest +4.
We allow ASIs and feats and yes, most go dor highest main stat first. But the sorcerer and the barbarian both posponed increasing their main stat for a bump in constitution.

Edit: I hope the mechanical expansion gives us feats for casters that are worth not increasing your main ability. I am nit sure what is balanced actually, but I have faith in the designers.

Shiroiken · Mar 23, 2017

You could get rid of the +2 option, leaving only 2x +1 or a Feat. This at least would slow the progression to 20 and force diversity (via secondary ability scores). I personally don't see a problem, but YMMV.

ccs · Mar 23, 2017

1) I think that your idea should be run past the players that'll be subject to it before you implement it.

2) I think that the feats chapter is too short. There aren't enough interesting feats, relevant to specific classes, to tempt the people who feel the need to max out their stats to take a feat instead.
3x/PF? WAY too many feats. 5e? Not enough.

Warmaster Horus · Mar 23, 2017

Given that PCs are supposed to become mighty heroes I have no problem with them using ASIs to advance their relevant stats. To me the fun is how they handle their other stats and associated skills.