D&D 5E Should D&D go away from ASIs?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

My #1 complaint about ASIs is that it's either them or Feats. I want to take the Feats, but my innner optimizer makes me take the ASIs. Boring.

Additionally, my inner grognard finds this constant ability creep to be newfangled and lacking in character. It all started with that damned Cavalier in Dragon magazine way back when. Also, back in the day if you found something that increased an ability score it was like winning the lottery. I miss that.

I'd be totally fine with no ASIs at all (again, except for the occasional rare events like Deck of Many Things), but if so then it becomes even more imperative to find a use for odd-numbered ability scores.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I voted "Yes" (get rid of ASIs).

It's common to see complaints along lines of "I want to take a feat, but ASIs are just too much better an option." It's a hard position to argue against. Especially given the reduced impact of lower ability scores in 5e (relative to earlier WotC era D&D anyway), I think that just eliminating ASIs and using feats only is an elegant solution.

I kind of wish I'd thought of that on my own, to be honest.

 

[neobolts]

If I had to choose, I'd say the current system (in my example point buy/array and stat bumps at certain level) works better. Becoming godlike alongside your companions seems compelling, and the bounded stat maximums keep it generally in line with the classic "3-18" stat range. It is certainly more compelling than "luck of the dice" at level 1, which is the alternative. Classic rolled stats could produce the "godlike" character from the get-go, and that's just the 20-year-old stepping out of town at level 1 without the year wandering around smashing orcs.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I always spend my ASIs on feats. I don't care if my highest score is a 14 and never increases.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I too prefer the level based improvement over ASI improvement. I mean, I get the other side of the argument, but I prefer the TSR era way of doing things. Feels more like D&D to me I guess. I will admit I do like BA though, and the current way of keeping lower level monsters more relevant to higher level PCs, which TSR era most certainly did not. Not nearly as bad as 3e, granted, but I like a squad of orcs still being applicable as a challenge to a party of level 5 PCs.

But I do not like the fact that an experienced adventurer with many actual combat encounters under their belt isn't any better at combat than someone who never saw combat but is a bit stronger or more dexterous. IMO, experience and learning techniques is more impactful than brute strength with no experience.

 

[Arilyn]

I find feats way more interesting. It's okay to improve stats a little, but ASIs need to be decoupled from feats and rare.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I always spend my ASIs on feats. I don't care if my highest score is a 14 and never increases.

I wish I had your self-discipline.

 

[mellored]

There is a place for +number, but you can both make it simpler, and make it more interesting by not using the pre-clumped ability scores. Particularly skipping the whole pointless (score-10)/2 = mod thing.


For instance...

Fighter's +to hit, while barbarians get +to damage.
Wizards get a small +to all spells, while sorcerer's get a bigger +to fewer spells.
Dwarves get +to hammers and Fort saves, Elves get +to bows and Reflex saves, and humans get a small +to everything.

 

[Azzy]

No, thanks, I think it's great being able to improve ability scores.