The Only Thing I Don't Like About 5e! (Hint- ASIs)

[Oofta]

I probably differ from some people in that I don't really care all that much if I ever get to a 20 in my primary stat. In fact the last character I had that got to 20th level never maxed out any of his ability scores and I didn't really miss it. With bounded accuracy, it just doesn't make as much of a difference as feats do. I also don't see that much sameness, so I think it varies a lot by group.

Oh, and paladins are a font of awesomeness that can only become more awesome by being gnomes. The awesomeness almost reaches the point of the unbearable super duper awesomeness if that gnome paladin is wielding rapiers. Throw in an owl? Awesomeness explosion. I'd post Sir McStabsalot once more but I don't want to break the internet.

 

[Remathilis]

It's ASIs, and level advancement. See, the problem I'm having is something that is deep and fundamental to 5e, and, well, to all D&D after 2e. The coupling of so many mechanics to ability scores, as opposed to levels.

Allow me to rip the rose-tinted glasses of your eyes for a minute...

AD&D had far more mechanics tied to ability scores than you might think. Lets take a few examples (note: I'm using 2e examples, as they are more familiar to me; 1e values might vary).

First off, each race had minimum and maximum stat requirements. Dwarves couldn't have less than an 8 Strength and an 11 Constitution, nor could they have more than a 17 Dex or Cha. Halflings required a 7 Str and Dex, 10 Con, and 6 Int, and also couldn't have an 18 in Wis and, even if they were a fighter, didn't get percentile for an 18 in Str. So right off the bat, your ability scores limited your racial choices and even how good you were at certain classes (as we'll see below).

Secondly, Classes had minimum requirements. Some were fairly easy (9 Str for fighters, 9 Wis for clerics) while others were nearly impossible (17 Cha for paladins). Again, your ability scores limited your choices here. But it wasn't just meeting the minimums; ability scores also determined how quick you could advance in a class (prime requisites) and how far you could go (expanding level limits in the DMG).

Further, each of the major class groups (warrior, rogue, priest, wizard) had abilities tied to having exceptionally high ability scores. For warriors, it was percentile Strength (for better hit/damage, you know, your job description) as well as more HP for high Con (other classes were capped a +2/HD max, no matter how high their Con score was). Intelligence controlled how easily a wizard could learn spells, how many they could know per level, and what level spell they could cast (forget 9th level spells unless you had an 18+ Int). Wisdom likewise controlled a priests high level spell access (requiring an 18+ Wis for 7th level spells) as well as your bonus spell slots. Thieves got +% to their thief skills for having high dexterity (and since skills were your bread and butter, it paid to have them max out as quick as possible). So if your classes main ability scores were sub-par (and in AD&D, we mean 15 or below) you were effectively penalized at how good you were at your class, how quickly you advanced, and what level you could reach in it*.

There is a reason I saw more rampant ability score cheating in AD&D than I ever did in 3e and on; the game damn near forces you to have 16+ in at least one, usually more, ability scores. And with no way to raise said scores beyond magic or DM fiat, lets just say I never saw a wizard with less than a 17 Intelligence...

(This also creates a few interesting corner cases, where a halfling cleric could never cast 6th or 7th level magic, as they were capped at a 17 Wis and coupled with level limits with boosts; never exceeded 10th level anyway. Barring powerful magic [DM fiat] of course)

Oh, and there's the little thing we call dual-classing ability limits; 17 in original class primes, 15 in the new class. And you through 5e's multi-classing limits was bad!

The difference, I guess, was that ability scores were more covert in how they controlled you, and if you never advanced beyond 10th level (as most AD&D games of that era did) or you had a forgiving DM who bent the rules (as most AD&D games of that era did) then it wasn't so bad. But if you played beyond level 13 (god bless you) the game punished you for not rolling well. Whereas 5e gives you a lower starting point (most PCs begin with a 15-17 for point buy, plus ASI) AND removes many of the above restrictions (want to play a dwarf with a 6 Str? Allowed! A paladin with a 14 Cha? Go for it, A wizard with a 15 Int? Still get your 9th level spells).

Its easy to think how ability scores seemed less important in AD&D (which, as pointed out, wasn't the case.) Basic D&D, however, never had many of the above restrictions and bonuses started much lower, so it is easier to say they didn't matter as much (though the game still have class minimums and prime requisites, ability scores didn't affect your class function as overtly as they did in AD&D.) I think though that 5e has done a decent job of balacing ability scores meaning something AND not penalizing your for having less the maximum in your important scores.

YMMV and all that.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Shiroiken]

I have actually considered removing the ASI, requiring everyone to take a feat instead. The half-feats that provide a +1 are still available, so improvement is possible, but at a rate that won't allow many 20 values.

The downside to this is that my group likes rolling, and this would make rolling high super-important. I would much rather allow a choice of arrays, as we all hate point buy, but they'd never go for it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I have actually considered removing the ASI, requiring everyone to take a feat instead.

I've thought about this, too.

Maybe pair it with a better default array. Something like 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 (i.e., trade the 14 for a 16)

 

[S'mon]

The best feats are better than ASIs - Polearm Master & Greatweapon master definitely beat +2 STR for my Barbarian PCs.

The mid feats are comparable - eg whether to take Alertness or +2 STR for a Barb.

The low feats are clearly giving up mechanical effectiveness, eg Actor or even Inspiring Leader for a CHA 13 Barbarian. Might be worth it for a CHA 18 Bard.

Overall I think the system is fine. I certainly don't see an "Everyone takes ASIs no one takes Feats" situation. And anyway the game is balanced around ASIs being core, Feats being optional. The maths is most reliable when level 11+ PCs do have at least an 18 in their prime stat, and a 20 at level 17.

A 20 is not Hercules, but it's not to be sniffed at either - typical ogre STR is 19, typical hill giant STR 21. It's a 'real world strongest man' type level, the sort of amount many fantasy heroes like Conan & Xena might have, whereas an 18 is more like a 1 in 216 top end of the 3d6 bell curve that no one rolls on anymore.

 

[Shiroiken]

I've thought about this, too.

Maybe pair it with a better default array. Something like 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 (i.e., trade the 14 for a 16)

Yea, slightly better array would be good too. I also want the option of several arrays, such as one with an 18, but two really low scores, and one with mostly 14s (for MAD multi-classing). Giving people choices allows characters to avoid the sameness that often comes from using array.

 

[Pauln6]

I was initially concerned about the high impact of ability scores. The simplest fix is to apply half proficiency to attack rolls for players possibly accompanied by half dexterity to damage for dexterity weapons.

You do find that you see fewer role play builds in 5e, such as intelligent fighters, but tye game has been quite well balanced to nudge people in in the direction of traditional builds. My PC was converted from a dual classed thief / wizard (shadow mage) to a multiclass Rogue / Warlock . My 17 intelligence and 14 Charisma mean the saves against my spells are slightly lower than they might be but she's still great fun to play.

Paladins were always annoying but few people could roll one and of those that did have stats good enough, few would want to role play one. 5e paladins seem really solid but they are very much a long rest class. Plan some of your adventures to take advantage of that. Some of their more annoying abilities could be tweaked (e.g. granting advantage against fear and charm and a limited resource like epic saves to use up instead of outright immunity) but in my group's experience no class outshines the others in every scenario. Just vary your DM style.

 

[jasper]

hahhahahhahhahahah Lowkey check your prescription. Hit the blender on my steak. How are the grand kids and great grand kids?
How many Thundarrs, Talons, Krull knock off did we play? How many times did we end up with guardlets of Ogre power, hill giant str belt ( psst people it was always interesting lowkey won the STORM giant str one).
Gynax did charts because he knew we were bad at math, and we had to math by hand on notebook paper.
For the grandkids.
Us old folk forget the old cookie cutter ps we played. The number of times we rolled up a full sheet of legal notebook paper for that one set of beautiful stats. The number of times we cheated. on our stats, dice rolls, and position on the map.
Dms use to have to create high level monsters, or set up rooms to null some of our abilities.
**
Lowkey nice old man rant but next time defined what you abreathing ateing. Took me half the rant to remember Ability Score Increases can be ASI.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yea, slightly better array would be good too. I also want the option of several arrays, such as one with an 18, but two really low scores, and one with mostly 14s (for MAD multi-classing). Giving people choices allows characters to avoid the sameness that often comes from using array.

Yes! Several different arrays would be great.

A method I proposed a while ago, to get more variety in stat distribution, is as follows:

1) Roll 3d6 x 6, assigning results in order.
2) Now increase those scores as desired using point buy, with a budget of 12 points to spend (1:1 below 13, 2:1 to increase a 13 or 14, 3:1 to go above 15).

12 points works out to be identical to current rules (that is, starting with 8's you would have to spend 15 points to reach an average of 10.5, which is what you get rolling 3d6). But if you're going to ban ASIs I would make the budget 15.