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

[Shiroiken]

Not only would I like to got back to pre-ASI, but I'd love to cap ability scores at 18 and get rid of the +1/2 ability score. This would make higher/lower scores more meaningful, but the "average" score has a much wider range. For those of you unfamiliar:

3	-3
4-5	-2
6-8	-1
9-12	0
13-15	+1
16-17	+2
18	+3

 

[clearstream]

I like the math of 5E but understand (and kind of agree with) the people who dislike how stats become so important and optimizing "requires" you to boost them. There's the (strong) argument too that your stats shouldn't change that much over time.

This is easily fixed though by having three Proficiency tracks instead of two. Call it Non-Proficient, Proficient, and (dum dum dum) Specialized.

Yes, that's right, the return of weapon specialization. Only for "all Strength-related checks".

So you Strength doesn't increase and your Encumbrance remains the same, but all your Strength skills, saves, and weapon attacks get an addition +X.

ASIs are now the choice between a Feat and increasing your generic Specialization modifier.

Isn't that mostly a refluff of the current system? Could we think of it is as being that way already?

You see what I mean? If we are happy to relocate the modifiers, then isn't the debate becomes principally about not wanting carrying capacity and breath holding to scale with level?

I say that not because I'm especially for those things scaling with level, but I think I am probably against relocating the modifiers if the motive is offenses against fluff.

 

[schnee]

Another thing I take from it; it's a way for players to customize their characters.

Instead of everything being driven by class, some sections are driven by ability scores, and by choosing where to put them, you decide whether to have depth or breadth. Whether to bring up a low score to have balance, or to push your 'one thing' and keep a vulnerability.

So, those who want to eliminate ASI's, how else would you customize a character that would be as simple and as interrelated?

 

[eryndel]

I really like the 5e mechanics around ASIs. First, I don't have any issues about the realism of the scenario. In my mind, 20 is peak of mortal accomplishment. 20 Str is on par with the best weightlifters, 20 Int is on par with the Einsteins and Hawkings. These folks aren't of that level at early adulthood when most D&D characters start their adventuring careers. For me, superheroic levels of abilities is the purview of the 21-30 range of ability scores. For me, it's perfectly reasonable for a very smart adult (16 at 1st level) to eventually make it to 20 (pinnacle of human accomplishment) when they are hitting their stride in their adventuring career (usually 8th level).

In addition, ASIs when combined with feats make for some meaningful choices in character development. Among my characters (and among the characters at my table), some focus on getting that 20 in their prime attribute by level 8. Some feel drawn to certain feats and defer maxing out their abilities. I believe there is more of an interest among spellcasters to hit max ability, but this has more to do with the lack of interesting feats for spellcasters (as compared to martials).

That said, the beauty of the system comes when you have ASIs, combined with feats (for meaningful choices during leveling), and point-buy. Point buy sets a clear schedule for the ability scores of characters. No character will start with more than a +3 bonus in their top ability score at level 1 (16 or 17). The earliest you can get +4 (barring magic items), is at level 4, and +5 is at level 8 (6 for fighters). Rolling scores throws that out the window. You can have one character start with an 18 (or 20 with racial bonus), while another only has a 16 max. That's an expected 8 level spread on the schedule, which has a noticeable effect at the table.

It's because of this that 5e was my first edition where I actually preferred point buy. For me, it's always been rolling stats at my table since I first started. When I switched to 5e, I started with rolled stats and really felt the swing in power level between characters at my table. Not to turn this into a point buy thread (we've got plenty of those), but the ASI system really hums when you include all three (ASI, feats, and point-buy) and can have issues when you only have one or two. If there's an issue with 5e that should be fixed for 6e, it's to find a way to make these three system not so interdependent.

 

[Staccat0]

I likes ASIs because they tell a story.

 

[Sunseeker]

Another thing I take from it; it's a way for players to customize their characters.

Instead of everything being driven by class, some sections are driven by ability scores, and by choosing where to put them, you decide whether to have depth or breadth. Whether to bring up a low score to have balance, or to push your 'one thing' and keep a vulnerability.

So, those who want to eliminate ASI's, how else would you customize a character that would be as simple and as interrelated?

This is a good point. If someone wanted to play the most simple Champion Fighter they could, then without ASIs they'd be forced to complicate their character. I think ASIs are a good system for allowing improvement without mandating additional complexity.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So, those who want to eliminate ASI's, how else would you customize a character that would be as simple and as interrelated?

When you create your character you put your points where you want to. There, customized.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I really like the 5e mechanics around ASIs. First, I don't have any issues about the realism of the scenario. In my mind, 20 is peak of mortal accomplishment. 20 Str is on par with the best weightlifters, 20 Int is on par with the Einsteins and Hawkings.

And it doesn't bother you that basically every single character is at the "peak of mortal accomplishment" by level 8?

Heck, why not just make a rule that you start with a 16 in your main stat, which becomes 18 at level 4, and 20 at level 8? Because that's basically what we have.

It's because of this that 5e was my first edition where I actually preferred point buy. For me, it's always been rolling stats at my table since I first started. When I switched to 5e, I started with rolled stats and really felt the swing in power level between characters at my table. Not to turn this into a point buy thread (we've got plenty of those), but the ASI system really hums when you include all three (ASI, feats, and point-buy) and can have issues when you only have one or two. If there's an issue with 5e that should be fixed for 6e, it's to find a way to make these three system not so interdependent.

I will agree that if they get rid of ASIs the point buy system needs to allow you to buy up to a 19, leaving room for 1 point so that if you luck at out any point in your career and get a +1 boost it means something, but that if you choose an 18 or 19 your other stats are going to be 13 or lower, and you'll probably have one below 8.

 

[Ratskinner]

Another thing I take from it; it's a way for players to customize their characters.

Instead of everything being driven by class, some sections are driven by ability scores, and by choosing where to put them, you decide whether to have depth or breadth. Whether to bring up a low score to have balance, or to push your 'one thing' and keep a vulnerability.

So, those who want to eliminate ASI's, how else would you customize a character that would be as simple and as interrelated?

Well, I'm not opposed to ASIs in the current framework, but I am growing increasingly sceptical of the concept of simulationist-y attributes in general. So I'll take a crack at it.

I would propose that the mechanical weight born by the current ability scores be carried instead by class and racial features and a sort of ribbon list to quirk-ify characters. That way, if you want to play a heavy-hitting muscle-mountain of a fighter, you take that tank class and it's baked right in. Have another swashbuckler class for the clever, acrobatic version of fighter, who has his critical abilities baked right in.

Similarly, if elves are to be especially graceful, give them an Elven Grace trait and tell me what it does. (Classes would be a smaller and more tightly-defined with fewer internal options than the current system.) That gives an opportunity to make that Elven Grace more impactful than a minor statistical variance from baseline human. (No guarantees on designers using that well.)

The quirk list might provide narrower, weaker, or just plain different distinctions. It could even be wrapped into the background idea.

However, as much as possible, all of these should avoid having simple mechanical stacking bonuses​, especially to combat stats. The Swashbuckler and Manmountain above both have the same basic combat bonuses, but they derive from different narrative sources. (Since we are talking about them as Fighters). The differences become apparent when the Manmountain uses his "Bend Bars/Lift Gates" trait and the Swashbuckler uses his "He's a leaper" ability. Along these lines, I would recommend that the spells also be a descriptor that work within the mechanical confines of the caster class.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using EN World mobile app

 

[eryndel]

And it doesn't bother you that basically every single character is at the "peak of mortal accomplishment" by level 8?

Heck, why not just make a rule that you start with a 16 in your main stat, which becomes 18 at level 4, and 20 at level 8? Because that's basically what we have.

In general, it doesn't bother me. However, as I said, every single character doesn't push to get max stat by level 8. The spellcasters often do, but the martial characters at my table often desire a feat before hitting cap, so won't hit the "peak of mortal accomplishment" until 12 or 16 (or earlier for fighters).

I don't have an issue that all the characters at my table will eventually have a 20 somewhere, by the time they hit level 20. I agree, I expect my characters to eventually max something out. It's just a matter of when, and what they pick up along the way. But, as far as I'm concerned, they are the heroes and should eventually be at the peak.

I wouldn't prefer the solution you provide, because it removes choice. I like the fact that, among my players, they angst over whether they want to grab a kind of boring +2, or pick up a GWM, or even a pick like mobility, or healer that may be sub-optimal, but fits a need in the group.

But tables vary and all that.