D&D 5E Solution to ASI Problem

W

Wulffolk

Explorer

• Oct 30, 2017

• #11

[MENTION=6783882]Nevvur[/MENTION]
Thank you for your insights. I had considered that monsters might be more challenging if PC's don't have a 20 in their primary Ability, and I am fine with that. I would consider it more of a feature than a problem.

You are definitely correct in your observation that this would have a greater impact on SAD Classes than it would on MAD Classes. I will give this some thought, but I am not sure that I would consider this a problem. Super specialization should mean some deficiency elsewhere.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

G

Ganymede81

First Post

• Oct 30, 2017

• #12

Wouldn't you need to rebalance or tone down feats if you were to implement this change?

 

T

The Crimson Binome

Hero

• Oct 30, 2017

• #13

Ganymede81 said:

I'd rather fix it by eliminating ability scores altogether and replacing them with ability modifiers alone; that'd eliminate most of the reason for a graduated points system and odd ability scores.

Click to expand...

That wouldn't actually solve the point cost issue, as long as higher modifiers cost more points. Presumably the designers would make buying a stat of +3 cost more than increasing three stats from +0 to +1.

 

S

Seramus

Hero

• Oct 30, 2017

• #14

This seems like it would reduce the amount of fun.

I wouldn't want to make the game less fun unless I was gaining something really important in the trade-off (like a massive balance increase, or making the game much more approachable for new players).

 

W

Wulffolk

Explorer

• Oct 30, 2017

• #15

Ganymede81 said:

Wouldn't you need to rebalance or tone down feats if you were to implement this change?

Click to expand...

There are certain Feats that in my opinion require a house rule to balance anyways, so this would require no extra work on my part beyond the changes that I am already making.

The change to ASI's that I was suggesting in the original post is obviously not intended for people that are happy with the way that ASI's currently work. I was hoping to begin a conversation about a possible solution for those like me that are bothered by ASI's as they are currently implemented. Judging by some other threads, there seemed to be a significant number of players that might share my opinion.

Anybody that hates this idea please understand that I am not attempting to persuade you to agree with me or change the way you play. I have never been able to enjoy any edition of D&D playing RAW, so I am constantly tinkering with house rules.

 

T

The Crimson Binome

Hero

• Oct 30, 2017

• #16

Wulffolk said:

Instead of ASI's granting a flat +2 or +1/+1 to ANY Ability, each ASI grants 2 more points of Point Buy that can be spent. You can raise two low Abilities by +1, or one moderately high Ability by +1, or save up points to increase an Ability that is very high.

Click to expand...

This doesn't actually address the root of the problem, which is the ludicrous value disparity between different stats for each character. A rogue with Dex 20 and everything else at 10 is better than a rogue with Dex 10 and everything else at 20. If you make it more expensive for a rogue to raise their Dex, then they will raise their Dex anyway and simply have lower stats. If you make it prohibitively expensive for dwarves to raise their Dex, then there will be no dwarven rogues.

 

W

Wulffolk

Explorer

• Oct 30, 2017

• #17

I suppose this might be true for those players that are solely focused on optimizing their build. I tend to think of things from a story and character background perspective, and from a history of playing earlier editions with no way to "optimize" a character without cheating on rolled stats.

Optimizing is not necessary within a small group of friends that have the primary goal of collaboratively telling a compelling story and having fun. It is primarily an issue amongst a larger community of players that see the game as a competition.

A game created to address the needs of a large community of competitors such as AL will need to be designed differently than a game that only needs to worry about the fun of a half dozen friends.

 

W

Wulffolk

Explorer

• Oct 30, 2017

• #18

Saelorn said:

This doesn't actually address the root of the problem, which is the ludicrous value disparity between different stats for each character. A rogue with Dex 20 and everything else at 10 is better than a rogue with Dex 10 and everything else at 20. If you make it more expensive for a rogue to raise their Dex, then they will raise their Dex anyway and simply have lower stats. If you make it prohibitively expensive for dwarves to raise their Dex, then there will be no dwarven rogues.

Click to expand...

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. The disparity between a 16 and an 18 is far less than the disparity between a 10 and a 20 as you described.

 

U

UngeheuerLich

Legend

• Oct 30, 2017

• #19

If as a human, you start with a 16 in an avility score,
You need 6 points to 18 and 8 more points to 20.
That is 14 points with your calculation. That is way too costly.

I would most probably make every stat above 13 cost 2 ASI per increase. I would most probably give 3 points per level. That way you are encouraged to split the increases to a good and a bad stat.
I would most probably leave half feats alone and just let you increase the stat by 1. Maybe I would give 2 points to increase your stats. That would reverse even and odd for low stats.
In the case that you already have a 12 in a stat you could save it up for a cheaper increase to 14 with a single point.

If I really feel like it I could imagine that you can raise a single very low stats by 2 points with a single point buy point.
Question is what qualifies for very low stats. Probably below 8 which may happen when rolling stats. Maybe the 8 too.
I could imagine that in that case I might charge 3 points for the final increase to 20

 

W

Wulffolk

Explorer

• Oct 30, 2017

• #20

[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.