D&D 5E Solution to ASI Problem

The Crimson Binome · Oct 30, 2017

Wulffolk said:
I would disagree with this. Use of this option would actually reduce the disparity between different characters. Fewer character's would have a 20, and more would have 14-16, or maybe an 18.

Would they, though? Or would every rogue still end up with a 20, but they would just have lower Wisdom and Charisma? I guess if you're talking about low-level characters, then they wouldn't see any improvement at level 4 while they save up the points for later.

The difference between having Charisma 12 and Charisma 14 (for a rogue) is already borderline negligible. You would have to make twenty Charisma checks before it's likely to have any impact whatsoever. Likewise for Strength or Intelligence, or possibly even Wisdom depending on scenario and playstyle. Asking a player to throw their points into any other stat is simply a bad deal, for as long as their prime stat is still an option. It doesn't even matter the exchange rate. Prime stats are just that important.

The rules addressed this issue by making the cap low enough that every character can still hit it, probably by level 4 but definitely no later than level 8, so they would be free to diversify after that point. There are other ways to address the problem: Get rid of ASIs entirely, so that everything is set in stone at level 1; Give everyone an 18 in their prime score, and leave random or point buy for the other stats; Force ASIs to be applied in a rigid order (lowest first, +1 to highest and +1 to any other, etc). All of those would solve this issue. Simply changing the exchange rate would not.

Wulffolk · Oct 30, 2017

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]
Try not to think of ASI's from a 20th level perspective. Try to think of them from a here and now perspective. A player could take a Feat now, or raise a lower stat now (maybe improving a save), or he/she can hold on to those points and wait 4 more levels before getting an increase to their primary stat. I think that enough people would go for the benefit now, and less would save up to get that 20. If getting that 20 required most or all of their ASI's wouldn't they be better off with some useful and colorful Feats instead? Leave it to the one player that wants to be Hercules to focus on getting that 20 Strength. The rest of the Fighters might have some fun tactics instead.

Horwath · Oct 30, 2017

How about limit the stats to 18?

Add some light armor that gives AC 13+dex to get AC 17 from light armor as max once again.

If max score is 18, then you only need 2 ASI's to get the max. 8th level. Then you can beef up secondary stats or take more feat.

In addition you could give extra stats at 2nd,6th,10th,14th and 18th level. That +2 MUST go to your LOWEST stat at that moment. That way you could give lots of extra stats without giving too much power to the character, but improving low priority skills and features.

The Crimson Binome · Oct 30, 2017

Wulffolk said:
[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]
Try not to think of ASI's from a 20th level perspective. Try to think of them from a here and now perspective. A player could take a Feat now, or raise a lower stat now (maybe improving a save), or he/she can hold on to those points and wait 4 more levels before getting an increase to their primary stat.

Now that is a different matter entirely. Unlike every other stat beyond the primary, feats are nominally balanced to be roughly as powerful as just increasing a primary stat. The instant you make a feat cheaper than increasing your primary score, you make feats become the only relevant option.

No rational actor is going to choose nothing at level 4, in the hopes of improving their primary stat at level 8, if they could gain power equivalent to improving their primary stat right now instead. The only ones who lose out on this deal are characters who don't have any real feat options, like some spellcaster types.

UngeheuerLich · Oct 30, 2017

Wulffolk said:
[MENTION=59057]UngeheuerLich[/MENTION]

I had originally considered what you suggest.
1 point per increase up to 13
2 points per increase from 14 to 17
3 points per increase from 18 to 20

I reconsidered and made it more expensive after adding the racial adjustments to the point costs instead of them giving flat bonuses. Perhaps, the previous costs are too expensive. I did like that it meant that Humans were unlikely to go above 18, just like in the early editions of D&D.

I really think it is expansive enough with my suggestion. I think it is neat that you have the same stat increases on average, but the higher stats are more expensive, the lower are cheaper. And on top of that you can't increase a high stat twice with a single aASI. So if you start with a 16, you need 4 ASI. You can instead raise 6 low stats by 2.
If you make 19 and 20 cost 3 pointa you won't see 20s very often.

schnee · Oct 30, 2017

Nevvur said:
After participating in the latest "gold is worthless" thread, I think it would serve the OP (and the forums in general) well if we treat the premise as a problem for certain DMs and players rather than an accusation against the system in general.

Fair enough, so let me explain more.

The system is designed from the very beginning to have ability scores have 20's at higher levels. Those increases combine with the Proficiency Bonus to enable character improvement over time, and that's what replaced the fixed scaling combat and DC bonuses of earlier editions. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

The way this is being mucked with won't break the game - Bounded Accuracy is forgiving - but it won't do much that ASI Standard Array wouldn't do already.

--

Long explanation: Instead of a Fighter getting a lock-step +1 to hit and damage every (x) levels, with a scale that's steeper than other characters, they flattened the math so a +1 or +2 is really significant and gave Fighters more ASI's. So, if you plunk everything into getting a 20 in one stat, it's functionally the same as the old system, and monster math is geared towards that Fighter having a 20 eventually.

So, if he wants to make getting a 20 harder, that's his right, but he's now created a different sub-game that players will exploit just as hard. It won't break the game, because of Bounded Accuracy, but in the very end a few characters will have 18's instead of 20's, and probably more Feats, because those are far more worthwhile than getting a 12 to a 14.

So, TL

R: I'm questioning what it will accomplish.

If the problem is about 20's, why not just use the Standard Array, or a low point Point Buy, and call it a day? That will push a 20 off until 8th level for the most dedicated min/maxer, and at least 12th for most. Someone who min/maxes that way will have middling to weak scores in their other abilities that will present exploitable weaknesses, and prevent it from being a true problem.

--

I have my own bias here, and I'll own up to it: I think house rules should be built so they seamlessly mesh within the system, in mechanics and aesthetics, and someone doing an outside analysis couldn't pick them out as being different. This rule seems to be too fiddly and complex, so I don't like it.

GreenTengu · Oct 30, 2017

One thing that should be considered though...

Does the game fundamentally do enough that even if one could raise one of their lower stats by a much greater amount, players would still choose to invest everything in their prime attribute because so much of classes is so totally dependent upon a single attribute while being able to easily ignore all others with little detriment.

Ideally, I think it would be better for the group to be made up of more well-rounded characters rather than ultra-specialized characters who have massive weaknesses that only avoid getting exploited as there is another super specialized character in the group who can cover that contingency.

I do get to a degree that the idea of everyone being super-specialized is to foster cooperation and help see that everyone has their area of expertise where they can be in the spotlight... but it does seem as though perhaps it has just gone too far.

Wulffolk · Oct 30, 2017

schnee said:
The system is designed from the very beginning to have ability scores have 20's at higher levels. Those increases combine with the Proficiency Bonus to enable character improvement over time, and that's what replaced the fixed scaling combat and DC bonuses of earlier editions.

--

I have my own bias here, and I'll own up to it: I think house rules should be built so they seamlessly mesh within the system, in mechanics and aesthetics, and someone doing an outside analysis couldn't pick them out as being different. This rule seems to be too fiddly and complex, so I don't like it.

[MENTION=16728]schnee[/MENTION]
Thank you for your participation in this thread. You made a very cogent argument, and I respect your opinion, even if you are wrong. ;-)
XP for you.

However, IF the system was designed with the expectation of every character having a 20 in their primary Ability, then I consider that a Flaw in the system's design. I would much rather that they built the bonus into bounded accuracy instead of presenting the illusion that the player has a freedom to choose between bumping an Ability or picking up a Feat. A choice that is all but mandatory is not really a choice, after all.

Wulffolk · Oct 30, 2017

If this option does enough to get players to choose Feats over maxing out their primary Ability, then I think it is a step in the right direction.

schnee · Oct 30, 2017

Wulffolk said:
However, IF the system was designed with the expectation of every character having a 20 in their primary Ability, then I consider that a Flaw in the system's design. I would much rather that they built the bonus into bounded accuracy instead of presenting the illusion that the player has a freedom to choose between bumping an Ability or picking up a Feat. A choice that is all but mandatory is not really a choice, after all.

I never said it was mandatory. I said it was designed with that in mind.

I've seen (and heard of) plenty of players that do just fine with 18's or even 16's in their main ability scores for entire campaigns. So, your notion of 'illusions' and 'mandatory choices' is more about theory-crafting than reality.