D&D 5E Hate ASI's ?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Rolling it and showing up to the table with it are two different things for some tables

As a teenager, I used to bribe my little brother to do my chores by offering his PC stat boosts. It got way out of hand. It was a weird mix of AD&D and Gamma World, and IIRC he had at least one PC with a Strength of Infinity.

Ah, the follies of youth.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The main thing that I have read from those that disagree with my premise is that abilities have so little meaning that they can hardly recall their stats. Let me help you, your primary was a 20. What this means to me is that there are too many feat/ASI bonuses and using them to max out your primary stat has basically become a feat tax. That doesn't sound like fun to me.

As someone who has been nodding while reading those arguments, and occasionally giving them XP, I can tell you that the bolded text is flat out wrong.

Maybe your players overwhelmingly max out their primary stat. Good for them. I know that I've had only 1 character in the last 15 years of gaming with a maxed out primary stat, that wasn't for a one shot dungeon delve. Or rolled stats, because the force is strong with me sometimes. I've had 2 or more 18's in one set of rolls probably a half dozen or more times.

But every time we point buy, whether it's been 3.5, Star Wars (RCR or Saga), 4e, 5e, or D20 Modern, neither I nor anyone in my group tries to max out their main stat. In 5e, we'd much rather take feats, most of the time. I've got one guy who obsessively spreads out his points, for instance making a kobold wizard with a 14 starting Int, and then makes sure to take feats (like linguist. real powergamer, this guy) that boost his main stat, or use ASI's, to keep his accuracy from flagging, but really that isn't even necessary in 5e. He'd be fine to boost the main stat with one ASI, and then forget about it.


My one maxed out stat guy? Half-elf Bard, Swashbuckler, bisexual casanova, son of a legit Fey Prince and a Traveler woman gorgeous enough to catch his eye and interesting enough to keep it for a while. So, yeah...max Charisma wasn't exactly a choice of stats over roleplaying!

My Halfling Ranger in our Eberron game started with 16 dex after race mod, and his first feat is Ritualist. Because 4e and 5e both, via different means, make it easy to use point buy to moderate your scores and be decent at a wide range of things.

But some people like to specialise, and...I really dont' understand why that matters to you? Why is it a problem for you that other people are building their character the way they want?

 

[TallIan]

I don't HATE them, but they aren't my favourite aspect of 5e. I do miss having a fixed set of numbers that defines the skeleton of the character.

I disagree with the premise that all classes end up with a 20 primary, but I see your point, because even if they aren't 20, they are higher than anything else or your character is one those "interesting" characters. But there are options, if you allow feats, that offer something different, both from an optimisation point of view and RP point of view.

I don't think that you can just drop them from play, because they are too tied to skill progression (by skill I mean the ability to hit things or blast them with fire, etc - not just the 5e skill list). Your fighter is better at hitting things with swords because his STR is higher than the wizards, not because he is better at hitting things with swords. Both have the same proficiency bonus, so both are equally skilled - the difference comes from their ability modifiers.

Personally I would make much flatter ability modifier progression (eg+1 every three numbers), probably also starting later (around 13), and a two tier proficiency bonus table. So your fighter is on the higher proficiency table for fighting, while the wizard is on the lower one. But the wizard gets the higher track for casting and some skills.

Changing your typical total modifier from (Prof + Ab MOD) to (Prof. + ab MOD if you are really lucky).

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'll agree that I dislike how similar every character comes out. I blame the goal of making character creation and leveling entirely deterministic (for the sake of AL play). I don't disagree with that goal, but the price is homogeneity.

 

[Capn Charlie]

a two tier proficiency bonus table. So your fighter is on the higher proficiency table for fighting, while the wizard is on the lower one. But the wizard gets the higher track for casting and some skills.

This was basically how it worked earlier in the 5e playtest. At first level, Warriors got +2 weapon attack and no magic attack bonus, casters got the reverse, and I want to say cleric got +1 to each. Other than that it worked very similarly to what you see now.

 

[TallIan]

This was basically how it worked earlier in the 5e playtest. At first level, Warriors got +2 weapon attack and no magic attack bonus, casters got the reverse, and I want to say cleric got +1 to each. Other than that it worked very similarly to what you see now.

That's kind of what I would aim for. The end result to be largely the same, but less dependent on the ASI. Maybe it's nostalgia for a previous ed, but I like to have the ability scores define the basic idea of the character. The cliched big strong fighter vs the skinny brainy wizard, with both progressing their skills through other mechanics.

 

[Cyber-Dave]

Personally, I hate your idea. I hate randomized ability scores. I love point buy. While, in theory, "everyone ends up with a 20 endgame," that isn't how I have seen the games at the tables I play at organize experience in praxis. At level 8, the group I am playing in right now has primary ability scores that range between 16 and 20. Some of us have opted for more feats, others have opted for higher natural stats. I like the way choice has organically created variant builds at our table. If a DM proposed the type of system you are suggesting, I would politely recuse myself from the game.

That being said, there is no right or wrong way to play. What I like is just that--nothing more. If it works for your table, go for it! Just speak to your players and make sure that they too will enjoy the change. If they would not, then perhaps variance is less important at your table (as a conglomerate whole) than it is to you. If, on the other hand, your players are also enthusiastic about the change, then the tastes of players like me be damned. Make the change that is good for your table!

 

[hejtmane]

I use rolled stats 4d6 drop the lowest what it does that I seen is they will then choose no optimal races because they can get to the end results so not everyone is a human variant or all the dex based builds are mainly elfs or haflings etc etc I get a variety of interesting character concepts like a dex based Hill dwarf fighter (note I do not care about D&D forgotten realms lore or back in my old days Dragon Lance lore or what ever) This is where I find the biggest variety in builds by using roled stats. To each there own on what they want and do not want.

 

[Horwath]

The game forces you to go for 20 in your primary stat. By simple math it is most rewarding.

And that leads to less feats and more of the same characters.

Here is my suggestion:

drop racial ability bonuses(most of them is +2 to one ability and +1 to another). All humans are variant in this way.

No ASI ever. You just can have feats. IF you want a half feat, take two instead of their linked +1 ASI.

have all characters have this ability scores; 18,16,14,12,12,10.

Yes, they would have them the same way that you describe the problem, but it would give more feats, and it is feats that give characters their own flavor.

Now you have 5 ASI to pick from. You need 2 for max stat and 2 for must have feats. that leaves only 1 floating flavor slot to be used. And that is mostly to boost secondary stat by +2.

 

[CydKnight]

I don't know. It seems like most of the opinions in this thread consider only extremes. The fact is that the rules as written give characters (and DMs) a choice in the matter. You can have an ASI or you can take a Feat when you reach certain level milestones. The reality I have witnessed is that not all characters will take an ASI at every opportunity. I have seen that there is a noticeable split in whether a player will take one or the other that largely depends on their build and the player's own play style. Whether that is a true 50/50 split, I really can't say however, I really don't see anyone trying to make a beeline to max out ability scores at 20 nor do I see players trying to max out Feats. Truth be told, I don't think most of the players in my group have planned that far in advance in how their characters will be outfitted either. So all of this to say that I feel that many of the opinions for either side in this thread seem to be a knee-jerk reaction to a worst case scenario that may or may not detrimentally effect gameplay.