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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Irda Ranger]

One benefit of the clip-on ASI/Feat is that many combinations are possible. How would a restructure with them locked into classes avoid narrowing character builds? A non-fluff consequence.

Who said anything about locking them away into classes? I didn't. I just suggest they could boost some "stat-like meta skill".

 

[DwynnsPlace]

From my experience one of the ideas about awarding ASI points is that it reflects character development in the general STAT/s that would grow as the character advanced. Not only would the character develop physically but also mentally. Yes this is reflected in gained skills as well as professions, feats or any other form of progression however, the basic adjustment in all creatures is the ability to overcome limitations due to exerting change in ones-self.

My take on the subject is firm and set in stone.
DM:8318686838 David Niewoehner

 

[Quartz]

But idea is to go away with ASI over levels, and to remove racial ability bonuses so you are not forced into optimal race/class combo.

What you could do is say that humans get two feats at first level and no stat bonuses and other races get one feat at first level and no stat bonuses but do get racial abilities.

Don't remember if this was mentioned.

You could have classes give stat bonuses on choosing them. Fighter gives +1 or 2 to str or dex and +1 to con and so on. This would lessen the need for ASI's to a degree.

Perhaps a better solution in this vein would be the Rolemaster method? You raise one of your prime stats in that class to (say) 16. So player of the heavy weapon Fighter, for example, using the standard array, could assign the 8 to Str secure in the knowledge that she will replace it with a 16

 

[Ilbranteloth]

So, in the thread about possible ideas for a Sixth Edition for D&D, one of the ideas I proposed was to go back to a more level-based system, and away from the ability-based system.

For those unfamiliar with this, back in the OSR/1e/2e/BECMI days, ability scores largely stayed the same as you advanced in level (other than magic items, or certain one-shot occurrences, such as the Feast in Chateau D'Amberville). But your abilities (such as being able to hit things and your saving throws) got better as you advanced in level.

This switched in 3e. From that point on, the game became much more centered on the ability scores, and your ability scores went up as you went up in level.

Now, the more I think about it, the more it bugs me. One possible solution is for me to stop thinking about it. BUT I WILL NOT TAKE THE PALADIN'S WAY OUT! And so I really wonder if this was a good idea; did we take a wrong turn? Would it be better to, um, just get better as we level up?

Here's some thoughts-

Advantages of ASI/Ability Score Improvement:
It's simpler for players and math. In so many ways. You just key everything off of your ability scores (from skills, to spells, to saving throws, to everything) and improve the ones you want. Makes it easier!

It allows for more customization. Yeah, I know. BUT OPTIMIZATION! Allowing people to pick and choose what abilities they want to improve gives more freedom to players (at least, in theory).

It's fun. I don't want to discount this factor. But ... there's something to be said for getting REALLY AWESOME (strong, dextrous, smarterererer) as you go up in levels.


Advantages of the Old Way:
It's more realistic. Realism is in the eye of the beholder, of course. But the main thing that really, really irks me is that every character in 5e goes from kinda strong to HULK SMASH or nimble to GODLIKE DEXTERITY or smart to EINSTEIN. It feels ... weird. Not that I'm all into biological determinism, but ... kinda strange? I mean, most of the characters start in the 20s, campaigns last a few years .... um ... I know that Nietzsche said that which does not kill me makes me stronger, but does killing Orcs raise a 14 Str to 20 in a year?

It makes more sense for a lot of game play. As you become a better fighter, you get better at weapons in general. You hit things better, with a bow, a sword, or a throwing axe - with some modifiers for dex or str. As opposed to becoming super awesome with one, and not so much with the other (depending on your use of scores). Yes, I know that in real life, people specialize in certain weapons. But it should reflect some general skill. This also applies, IMO, to saving throws. YMMV.

It's simpler for monsters and DMs. I'm about to go into heretical territory here, but ... stat blocks for monsters are stupid. The requirement that you have them bloats the written materials, slows game play, and results in absurd conversations about the correct intelligence for a swarm of rats- not to mention that there's always a tension between the need to assign stats to monsters for realism, and gamist reasons (because the saves depend on them). Letting monsters have roughly equivalent "abilities" (to hit, saves, etc.) with extra powers depending on the monster type speeds up game play. Again, IMO.


Anyway, just a few of my thoughts. I didn't realize until I posted in that thread how much this issue has been bugging me. And it's quite possible I'm wrong! I'm curious if other people feel similarly to me (as in, are other people correct, right, and also hate Paladins?), or if I'm just suffering from a pang of nostalgia for being able to look at tables?

For what it's worth, I don't have a good solution. It's clearly too baked into 5e to change. And I'm not sure how to best implement it without going back to those tables, which present their own problems - perhaps increasing the use of the proficiency bonus as you level up? But I wanted to throw it out there.

Also? A POLL!

So I agree with your statement to a degree, but in a different way...

The game continues to shift toward player/character entitlement and away from world-building. What I mean by this, is that game design is featured around what is "cool" and "fun" as a character, with a path toward special abilities like teleportation, sprouting wings, and other things that for an individual character sound "cool" enough, but don't hold up well when extrapolated across a percentage of the entire world. Combined with the expectation that you'll be gaining a level every few sessions and that each level should grant you some new ability (spells, a class feature, or an ASI), it has subtly (and sometimes not-so-subtly) altered the focus and feel of the game.

As for ability scores themselves. The game appears to be designed around the standard array and a fairly predictable arrangement of stats and ASI bumps. These have the effect of enhancing the core abilities of the class, since so many abilities are tied to the ability scores themselves, and also because the proficiency bonus advances slower. This appears to be based not on what the ability score represents in the game world, but because it means that at every 4th level a fighter, for example, can be expected to increase their to-hit and damage by +1 above that of other characters of the same level who opt to increase their spellcasting stat or whatever. This is also why people complain that STR-based fighters aren't worth it, because if you're DEX-based you get a +1 bump to attack, damage, AC, initiative, Stealth, and a more common saving throw.

On the one hand, this simplifies things. On the other, it causes things like the imbalance between STR and DEX that would be avoided if the fighter class simply granted a +1 to hit and damage every 4 levels. But that also requires something else to track.

To me, if the game remains focused on relatively rapid advancement, with something meaningful occurring at each level gained, and the focus remains on the players/characters rather than the world, then I don't think the specific mechanics will change the end result or feel all that much. And with the success of this edition, I have no reason to believe that the focus will change.

To their credit, they have reigned in the power levels a bit with bounded accuracy, which has had a noticeable effect on being able to produce an old-school feel very easily with the 5e ruleset, primarily by slowing level advancement.

As for your thoughts on monsters, I think that including the ability scores simplified things a bit. For example, without the stat blocks, you have to determine their modifiers for things like Stealth, Perception, Athletics, and many other skills frequently used by monsters. With the ability scores, you can ignore all of those (like they do), and note only the proficient skills. I take it a step farther, though, and just pick an ability score. For example, orcs are proficient in Strength skills. So instead of adding Athletics to their list of skills, they are just good (proficient) in Strength. Goblins are proficient in Dexterity abilities. That's much easier than listing skills.

 

[Horwath]

What you could do is say that humans get two feats at first level.

This should have been default for humans in 5e.

If they are default race by abilities then they should not get any ability bonuses at start.
But as humans are described by being adaptive and versatile;

they should get 2 feats and one skill proficiency at start.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This should have been default for humans in 5e.

If they are default race by abilities then they should not get any ability bonuses at start.
But as humans are described by being adaptive and versatile;

they should get 2 feats and one skill proficiency at start.

That would never work, because feats aren't an assumed part of the game. In the core game, being good at something just means you have a high ability score.

 

[bid]

I voted "No" because too many systems handle skill leveling correctly.

I'd rather have an ASI be +1 in 3 stats to remove the odd/even optimization.

 

[ccs]

I voted "No" because too many systems handle skill leveling correctly.

That's a novel reason.

 

[Syntallah]

In a Game I’m launching in a month or so, I am 90% locked in to the following changes:

There are six of us. We will each roll 4d6 – drop lowest. I will then convert the six results into a Point Buy Total, and that is the pool each player will use to create his character [if the result is lower than 24, I will bump it up to that; currently no plan to cap high end… ]

Racial Maximums will be observed (i.e. Dwarf Dex capped at 18, Halfling Str at 18, Elven Con at 18, etc)

If a player wishes, he can ‘spend’ three points of his Point Buy Total to purchase a Starter Feat from an approved list (i.e. the rarely chosen: Actor, Athlete, Keen Mind, Linguist, similar stuff from UA, etc)

ASIs will be accrued as normal (i.e. 4th, 8th, 12th, etc; fighters faster). You may choose a feat (any), or gain one point towards your Point Buy Total. Any stat increase must be purchased, so the high scores will take a few levels to get, and a non-fighter may not even get to a 20 with just ASIs. Note: the stat increase from a feat such as Durable is also added to your Point Buy Total, but since you get this plus something, it makes feats much more attractive. My hope is, that feats will be taken over a straight ASI, and thus diversify the characters more than we have seen.

I am also toying with capping the highest possible stat at 18 (16 for some races/stats as above), but increasing the Proficiency Bonus to compensate. My thought is that this will make certain characters really good at ‘their thing’ (i.e. fighters good at Athletics, Str saves, etc; Wizards good at Arcana, etc), but lessen their chances at things they are not proficient in. Just not sure about the math yet…