L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Who said anything about locking them away into classes? I didn't. I just suggest they could boost some "stat-like meta skill".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.
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.
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.
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!
What you could do is say that humans get two feats at first level.
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.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.
I voted "No" because too many systems handle skill leveling correctly.