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

[Guest 6801328]

I love long, (multi-year) campaigns with slow leveling, and I think DMs who design their own worlds from scratch are cool, but those are distant outliers in today's D&D market. WotC will say nice things about them, but won't put their needs above those of DDAL.

 

[Mercule]

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.

I think it's funny that the very first response to the question is the 180 opposite of my position. They only get to stay if they share space with something else, and I happen to think feats is the perfect partner.

My bias, like lowkey13's, comes from "growing up" with AD&D, et al. Having any ability score, ever, improve was a really big deal. Sure, there were age-related trade-offs, but most PCs either died or retired before they became a factor unless an elder character came out of retirement to bail out a young-un. Though I was generally receptive to the 3E changes, this was something I did find objectionable. I've gained a certain amount of tolerance for it, over the years, and can see where it makes sense for characters to actually improve in that way. It's still not something I want to see a lot of.

Even though I initially embraced feats in 3E with enthusiasm, I found the reality to be somewhat less awesome than I'd hoped. Feats were one of the main "game mastery" levers in 3.5 and the abundance of them (both in terms of slots and the literal thousands of options) drove the game to the point where Fantasy Hero started to look less more accessible for casual play. Don't misunderstand: I love feats from a customization perspective, but really loathe them as something for players to look forward to for "power-ups".

So, the reduced rate of ASIs in 5E, along with having to share the slots with feats does a pretty good job of putting both where they really should be, IMO. I get a bit nervous when I see feats in a book or UA column, but things are OK, for now. Let's see how Xanthumgum's Guide to Everything goes and then ask me again.

If I were going to make any changes for a hypothetical 6E, it would probably be to change ASIs to "+1 to a single ability" and then balance feats against that fairly tightly. Which means lightweight statistical modifiers packaged with thematically strong ribbon abilities. Actually, I'd be really interested in seeing ASIs as feats such that you only get that +1 Strength if there's a thematic ribbon that goes with it. Because feats can't generally be taken twice, I also like how that would keep the overall stat scores in check. The expectation of having a 20 in your primary stat is just silly.

 

[happyhermit]

I love long, (multi-year) campaigns with slow leveling, and I think DMs who design their own worlds from scratch are cool, but those are distant outliers in today's D&D market. WotC will say nice things about them, but won't put their needs above those of DDAL.

Really? All the info I have seen and what I've heard from the D&D team is that more people play in a homebrew setting than any official one. Or at least that homebrew setting are far from "distant outliers".

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think it's funny that the very first response to the question is the 180 opposite of my position. They only get to stay if they share space with something else, and I happen to think feats is the perfect partner.

My bias, like lowkey13's, comes from "growing up" with AD&D, et al. Having any ability score, ever, improve was a really big deal. Sure, there were age-related trade-offs, but most PCs either died or retired before they became a factor unless an elder character came out of retirement to bail out a young-un. Though I was generally receptive to the 3E changes, this was something I did find objectionable. I've gained a certain amount of tolerance for it, over the years, and can see where it makes sense for characters to actually improve in that way. It's still not something I want to see a lot of.

Even though I initially embraced feats in 3E with enthusiasm, I found the reality to be somewhat less awesome than I'd hoped. Feats were one of the main "game mastery" levers in 3.5 and the abundance of them (both in terms of slots and the literal thousands of options) drove the game to the point where Fantasy Hero started to look less more accessible for casual play. Don't misunderstand: I love feats from a customization perspective, but really loathe them as something for players to look forward to for "power-ups".

So, the reduced rate of ASIs in 5E, along with having to share the slots with feats does a pretty good job of putting both where they really should be, IMO. I get a bit nervous when I see feats in a book or UA column, but things are OK, for now. Let's see how Xanthumgum's Guide to Everything goes and then ask me again.

If I were going to make any changes for a hypothetical 6E, it would probably be to change ASIs to "+1 to a single ability" and then balance feats against that fairly tightly. Which means lightweight statistical modifiers packaged with thematically strong ribbon abilities. Actually, I'd be really interested in seeing ASIs as feats such that you only get that +1 Strength if there's a thematic ribbon that goes with it. Because feats can't generally be taken twice, I also like how that would keep the overall stat scores in check. The expectation of having a 20 in your primary stat is just silly.

I didn't play 3e although I perused the books on occasion. My impression is that those feats were distinctly power-ups...akin to Great Weapon Mastery or Crossbow Expert. The feats I like are the highly situational ones (e.g. Mage Slayer) or the ones that apply mostly to exploration/interaction. So the "customization" is more interesting than simply "I'm really extra especially wonderfully good with my chosen weapon".

I'd be completely happy if none of the feats gave across-the-board combat bonuses.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Really? All the info I have seen and what I've heard from the D&D team is that more people play in a homebrew setting than any official one. Or at least that homebrew setting are far from "distant outliers".

I'd like to see that info.

I'm just assuming my "data", but my reasoning is:
- By all accounts D&D is far more popular than it has ever been
- That means tons of new people have discovered D&D
- New gamers are unlikely to be brewing their own worlds
- Therefore, all those people are probably playing official content
- This is born out by the fact that the adventure books, although not selling in the same numbers as the PHB itself, are also selling quite well. And in general they are probably purchased by DMs not players, so each book sold = many people playing in official adventures

Now, on the last point, it may be that homebrew DMs are weaving official adventures into their worlds, but in that case they aren't entirely homebrew worlds.

 

[Onussen]

The original game (the 3 LBBs) placed little value on Ability Scores, and a means to increase them really was not needed. AD&D certainly placed a much, much stronger emphasis on Ability Scores, but did not provide many ways to improve them. I always considered this a bug, not a feature. It did provide plenty of ways to reduce the scores >:|. The only predictable changes were dependent upon the PC's age. (DMG pp. 12-23, for those who need a citation.)

As long as the game rewards higher ability scores, and penalizes lower ones, there ought to be a way to improve them apart from finding a rare Manual, or Tome. Or using a Wish. Or by DM fiat.

Keep ASIs as long as Ability Scores remain so important. If the current system bothers a body, cap the amount any one score may increase, say 3-5 points over the starting total, and no higher than 18. ( "Sorry Mr. Fighter, your body just cannot find a place for more muscles!, And you, Mr. Wizard, that skull of yours is not getting any larger.") Or find a way to reduce the value of higher scores relative to lower scores.

Now about that Cavalier. It was proof that AD&D had jumped the shark. Nice idea, but so terribly wrong for the game as implemented.

 

[Remathilis]

I'd like to see that info.

I'm just assuming my "data", but my reasoning is:
- By all accounts D&D is far more popular than it has ever been
- That means tons of new people have discovered D&D
- New gamers are unlikely to be brewing their own worlds
- Therefore, all those people are probably playing official content
- This is born out by the fact that the adventure books, although not selling in the same numbers as the PHB itself, are also selling quite well. And in general they are probably purchased by DMs not players, so each book sold = many people playing in official adventures

Now, on the last point, it may be that homebrew DMs are weaving official adventures into their worlds, but in that case they aren't entirely homebrew worlds.

This is a highly presumptive assumption. Plenty of new DMs create their own worlds. They might be a mixture of the stuff from the core-rules with whatever movies, comics, or media that they like. They might not be the wildly detailed and intricate games we old-players have, but I wager there is quite a few new DMs out their doing their own thing.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is a highly presumptive assumption. Plenty of new DMs create their own worlds. They might be a mixture of the stuff from the core-rules with whatever movies, comics, or media that they like. They might not be the wildly detailed and intricate games we old-players have, but I wager there is quite a few new DMs out their doing their own thing.

Oh, sure. Everybody improvises, so to some extent every world is homebrew. I was originally responding to a post from somebody who creates an entire new world for every campaign, and so by "homebrew world" I was really referring to people who mostly start from scratch.

 

[Remathilis]

Oh, sure. Everybody improvises, so to some extent every world is homebrew. I was originally responding to a post from somebody who creates an entire new world for every campaign, and so by "homebrew world" I was really referring to people who mostly start from scratch.

Not at they're first try, but they might start by modifying a part of the Realms, Greyhawk, or Mystara they first used from a module, but many add their own kingdoms, gods or such, and they use that as a springboard to making a new world. Its anecdotal, but I've seen more worlds started that way than use pre-canned worlds.

 

[happyhermit]

I'd like to see that info.

...

Well, one of the biggest and most diverse studies that touches on the issue comes to mind, it's about as close as I have seen to an open and "scientific" one; http://slyflourish.com/2016_dm_survey_results.html

Of 6,600 respondents on primary campaign worlds used, 55% answered personal setting, 38% answered Forgotten Realms, 5% answered another D&D campaign world, and 2% answered non-D&D campaign world.