D&D 5E Solution to ASI Problem

Wulffolk · Oct 31, 2017

shidaku said:
How would this resolve the problem of people looking like clones? If Joe and Bob are both Fighters, and can't get a 20 in STR, then they're going to try to get as high as possible.

Even if it gave you points for point buy, making it easier to raise low scores than raise high ones, you still run into the problem that Fighters don't value Int, Wis or Cha. I mean sure, Joe could spend 2 point-buy points to raise his Wisdom...but...why would he? What incentive is there for him to raise that score?

You want to address issues with clones then the only solution is to increase the mathematical relevance of non-primary scores to classes.

I am surprised that you can't see how this would reduce the number of clones. I will try to help you understand why I think it would.

Joe and Bob are Fighters that choose not to invest all of their ASI's towards maxing out Strength because it is now more expensive. So, they might choose Feats instead, and most likely will choose different Feats. Let's say that they both prefer to boost lower Abilities instead of choosing a Feat. One might choose Wisdom to increase his Will save and his Perception skills, while the other might prefer to be tougher by increasing his Constitution, or to improve his ranged options with Dexterity. Maybe one of them styles themself as a leader of men and chooses to boost Charisma, and the other enjoys scholarly pursuits or wants to be a tactical genius so improves Intelligence.

And there ya go, greater diversity in builds. To me that is much more fun than both Joe and Bob being as strong as Ogres, and having no interesting choices beyond "Me swing sword again".

The Crimson Binome · Oct 31, 2017

Wulffolk said:
Joe and Bob are Fighters that choose not to invest all of their ASI's towards maxing out Strength because it is now more expensive. So, they might choose Feats instead, and most likely will choose different Feats. Let's say that they both prefer to boost lower Abilities instead of choosing a Feat. One might choose Wisdom to increase his Will save and his Perception skills, while the other might prefer to be tougher by increasing his Constitution, or to improve his ranged options with Dexterity. Maybe one of them styles themself as a leader of men and chooses to boost Charisma, and the other enjoys scholarly pursuits or wants to be a tactical genius so improves Intelligence.

Then Larry shows up, and he actually understands how the world works. He sees his peers spending time with social engagements and playing chess, and he just laughs at them while he continues to pump iron. Later, when a social situation arises, Larry takes point because he has more confidence and jumps in before the other guy can say anything. When a situation calls for tactics, he also proposes a strategy, and convinces everyone else to go with it because he's more confident. Nobody has time to suggest that the other guys might be better at those things, because any advantage they may have is statistically insignificant.

A little while down the line, Larry keeps pumping iron and has larger muscles to show for it. While nobody noticed if the other were slightly better in their own supposed areas of expertise, everyone does notice that Larry is more effective in combat than the others, because the dozens of checks required every minute mean that the +1 modifier is no long insignificant. Joe and Bob retire in disgrace, and are replaced by John the Bard and Bob the Rogue.

Wulffolk · Oct 31, 2017

This is the crux of where our views diverge. There are at least two types of players here:
One prefers to have fun telling a story with friends and using the system to help them do that. Role-Player.
The other has fun manipulating the system to win a perceived competition with other players. War-Gamer.

Both are equally valid ways to have fun, assuming that the others at your table are on the same page. The problem comes when you try to have fun in mixed company. Larry's player would not be welcome for very long by the group that he tries to steal the spotlight from by proving his system mastery. Just like somebody who doesn't optimize would be considered the weak link in the other group.

I could have fun with either group, as long as I knew ahead of time what the expectations were. However, I much prefer the Role-Players over the War-Gamers when it comes to playing D&D, just like I prefer intellectuals and nerds over the meat-heads at the gym when it comes to real life, even though I used to have a competitive athletic side to my life.

Wulffolk · Oct 31, 2017

As a side note, how much more effective is Joe with his Wisdom that has not been dumped (and maybe even bumped up a little) when him and Larry are the victims of a Charm spell. Or, how much less damage will Bob take once he engages in melee because he was more effective than Larry at range. Then again, were Larry to be Charmed and turned against Joe or Bob, how much less effective would Larry be when Joe knocked him prone, or Bob proves his mastery of great weapons.

That extra +1 Strength modifier is not quite as important or optimized as you would like to believe.

Sunseeker · Oct 31, 2017

Wulffolk said:
I am surprised that you can't see how this would reduce the number of clones. I will try to help you understand why I think it would.

Joe and Bob are Fighters that choose not to invest all of their ASI's towards maxing out Strength because it is now more expensive. So, they might choose Feats instead, and most likely will choose different Feats. Let's say that they both prefer to boost lower Abilities instead of choosing a Feat. One might choose Wisdom to increase his Will save and his Perception skills, while the other might prefer to be tougher by increasing his Constitution, or to improve his ranged options with Dexterity. Maybe one of them styles themself as a leader of men and chooses to boost Charisma, and the other enjoys scholarly pursuits or wants to be a tactical genius so improves Intelligence.

And there ya go, greater diversity in builds. To me that is much more fun than both Joe and Bob being as strong as Ogres, and having no interesting choices beyond "Me swing sword again".

Because for fighters, that bonus is a 1 or 2 point difference over the entire game (remember they have to invest 2 points to get 1 bonus) and they have very few skills that play off of them. They will come into play rarely and not make much of a difference when they do. As opposed to that boosted strength which comes into play multiple times every round in every combat.

You're not giving them incentive to improve lower scores, you're just saying some people might value different things to being with. If people value different things to being with, then you don't need a rule to fix clones.

Wulffolk · Oct 31, 2017

When you boil D&D down to little more than a combat game I suppose that I can see your point. However, D&D is far more than just a poor combat simulator, at least for me.

Nevvur · Oct 31, 2017

[MENTION=6871450]Wulffolk[/MENTION]

So are you going to put this revision into play and let us know if it produces the desired effect?

Wulffolk · Oct 31, 2017

Nevvur said:
[MENTION=6871450]Wulffolk[/MENTION]

are you going to put this revision into play and let us know if it produces the desired effect?

I am currently between groups, and I am looking to begin a new campaign as soon as I can gather a group of like-minded players. Considering that I am heavily leaning towards an E6 style game, I doubt that this house rule will end up synergizing well with the other adjustments that I am considering. If the group would prefer to play a campaign with standard levelling then I probably will go with this, or some variation of it. However, since levelling is slow in my campaigns you might have to wait several years before I can post something about how well this works out. None of my house rules are tested in a bubble though. They all must synergize with numerous other adjustments. I just can't help but tweek this game.

schnee · Oct 31, 2017

You're in good company. I've seen hundreds of games that were made by people that think D&D is 80% there, 'except for these parts', and then try to get people to play their version.

Having played many many games over time, each one just pushes the same amount of versimilitude-breaking nonsense to different places that don't bug the designer so much. The sad part is, 99% of the people who ever look at their game don't care. And unless your production values are as good as D&D, why should they?

I wish you luck.

Sunseeker · Oct 31, 2017

Wulffolk said:
When you boil D&D down to little more than a combat game I suppose that I can see your point. However, D&D is far more than just a poor combat simulator, at least for me.

Then why do you care about the mathematics? Or do you just not have an argument?

I mean seriously I'm getting mixed messages here. You started this thread because you had a an idea about solving the "ASI problem". I mentioned that the problem is not ASIs, the problem is how much a class values any given stat. You countered with an argument about how players might value different stats. I told you that has nothing to do with the ASI problem in the first place. And now you what, are implying I'm playing the game wrong?

Look it's simple:
If players by nature value different stats then there is no ASI problem. There can't be. Because if this is true then a player will say "I'd rather have a 16 Str and a 16 Wisdom because I just want to be a wise old fighter, regardless of any mechanical benefit I may gain or lose."
If you just don't like the fact that it's possible to "max out" a certain score, remember that the caps are arbitrary mechanical limitations designed to balance the game, they are not the absolute maximum scores those creatures may have in the game world unless YOU the DM say so.
If you want players to mechanically value different stats, you need class features that place value on those stats. Otherwise they're always going to put their points where it matters the most.