D&D 5E Hate ASI's ?

[CydKnight]

How often do you have two of the exact same Class playing at the same time? As a DM I would steer players away from this if not outright ban it. Otherwise I don't see how you have a group all "with the same exact stats".

I am only guessing but it sounds like you may have a group with the mindset that everyone needs to be some optimized combat machine whether through weapons, spellcasting, or some combination. I try to steer my group from getting too caught up in this mentality because it will hinder them at some point if you don't have that Diviner Wizard or that Healing Cleric so they shouldn't assume that if they aren't doing optimal damage every round that they aren't effective for the party.

 

[thethain]

I kinda disagree. As a player I like that there is a limit on stat progression so I can go after the "fun" or interesting feats instead. I do not think 5e provides the depth of feats to truly allow you to ignore ASI and still have meaningful advancement at every ASI/feat improvement.

 

[iserith]

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 can't say I share this concern. As a DM, I don't even look at the characters' stats. As a player, I just max out my relevant stats most of the time and forget about it. Your issue seems to be with character differentiation and in my view that's done through the other build options, personal characteristics, and what a player does to bring that character to life. I see no reason to change the current rules.

 

[Oofta]

I don't know the values of any of my player's PC's stats, don't know if I ever have and don't understand why it matters.

As far as PCs all being the same, when I encounter it, stats have nothing to do with it. I have one player who plays the same 1 of 2 characters over multiple editions. He once played the same characters in two campaigns simultaneously (living campaign and home campaign) with names so close to each other that everyone was always confusing them.

I have another player who always goes on to optimization boards to find the most broken combination.

Wizards are going to have a good intelligence. Rogues are probably going to have a good dexterity. Some people are going to run the same basic character over and over again.

If you limit ASIs, the only difference you will see is a point or two in primary ability scores with absolutely no other difference. Ability scores don't make the character.

The only way to see "variety" would be to do truly random characters. Randomize everything. Race, gender, stats, class, sub-classes. Heck, throw in random multiclassing along the way.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

True. I like the idea of using either (Stat+Prof) or 2xProf, whichever is higher. Gives you a bonus for rolling high stats in the early game, but gives you a reason to advance other stats or take feats as your levels get higher, since the investment in a 20 will be superseded by 13th level.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

The only thing I dislike is that on ASI each stat has the same "cost" whereas on Point Buy Character creation, the cost doubles after 13. It would be better if ASI just means "You get 4 more stat points you can distribute" and then maybe make the last increase from 19 to 20 actually cost 3 points.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

ASI don't make characters 'samey' - players do. And the system doesn't reward boosting primary stats - campaigns do. But the system helps!

Maybe it's a difference in campaign style - we have a number of players who do not increase their character's primary stats, preferring to either round out or improve areas that fit their character idea.

The reason I think it could be a difference in campaign style is that we're running a very free-form sandbox style game, which has lent itself to lots of social interaction and exploration, which in turn may lead to combat. The narrative comes from the player's play - choices of where to go, what to do and so on - so there's less of a need to 'win' an encounter.

Long story short - we still get high stats and characters who have maximum primary attributes, though there's a lot more variety (for example, socially, there's a classic bard type, with Cha 20 who has boosted both their Strength and Dexterity for character concept reasons, and also a mastermind rogue, also with 20 Charisma and only 14 in Dexterity.) Of course, it could just be down to our players and peer pressure.

 

[the Jester]

I have to disagree with the premise. Although many pcs go for optimization, not all do. My gnome wizard has an Int 15 at level 6, for instance, and there are a number of level 10+ pcs in my game with non-maxed out prime stats. So, it's just a matter of playstyle.

 

[Blue]

I love ASIs as a concept. Great multiclassing balance point, hard choice if you want an ASI or a feat. Here's some of the things I see changing if you limit ASIs to max +2 to an ability score so you can evaluate for yourself if they are important at your table.

• MAD characters will get more bonus over time then SAD characters - like a monk might want a good dex, good wis and good con, while a fighter archer just needs dex. The former can get more "full +2" mileage out of ASIs.
• Fighter and Rogue are somewhat disadvantaged - with them getting additional ASIs as part of their class, losing great places to put them and having to settle sooner for good or meh is a nerf.
• Magic items that boost ability scores become much more powerful - getting a 19 STR or INT from an uncommon item will make you a powerhouse.
• How well you roll will determine the maximum potential of your character. Even back in editions prior to increasing ability scores with level there was magic to permenantly raise them. Now if you roll a 14 max you need to say you'll never be a top-of-the-line hero mechanically able to compete with the guy who rolled 18.
• Odd multiclassing gets a boost - less worry about matching up your ability scores when multiclassing. Hey, your 14 CHR is more then good enough to pick up sorcerer even if your original class has no CHR focus.
• Some class balance at high levels assumes 20 ability scores. For instance, bardic inspiration uses and many cleric domains base usage on prime ability score modifiers and balance assumes they will eventually get to 5.

Also, is the ASI +2 still capped at 20, or if you roll an 18 and have a racial +2 can you increase it with an ASI to 22?

 

[Istbor]

With his\her system of rolling, you can't get an 18. He\she stated that you roll 3d6 and replace one of those dice with a 4. That takes 3 6s to 2 6s and a 4, making it 16. I believe the cap would still be in place. (aside from the Barb.)