D&D 5E Should D&D go away from ASIs?

[BookBarbarian]

I wish I had your self-discipline.

It's not just restraining myself though. With things like Advantage and the Lucky feat, I hardly miss having a maxed out score. What's the point of rolling a 24 when a 18 hits? I find having multiple dice to try and hit that target feels good enough that I don't miss the +3 from turning a 14 to a 20.

Edit: I have not done the probabilities to see if the above is mathematically worthwhile, I just play and try to see if I feel like I'm no longer being effective.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I find the problem I have with ASI is not the stat increase in itself, but the fact that there's a hard cap on them. Its fun to make the choice to have a fighter with ridiculous 24 Str, but with a cap at 20, many other player at the table will be within the same ballpark after a few ASI and every class feel samey (its better with the stardard array tho).

 

[Satyrn]

My #1 complaint about ASIs is that it's either them or Feats. I want to take the Feats, but my innner optimizer makes me take the ASIs. Boring.

I'm right there with you, but I force myself to take feats.

But I can't take feats like Dual Wielder, because they're so mechanically focused on numbers that I still compare themto an ASI and realize that "nah, it ain't worth taking." So that leads me to look at the feats like Martial Adept and Magic Initiatefeats that give me something new to do, which is cool.

But it only works if I suppress my powergamer instincts.

Anyway, I voted to keep the ASIs, but I'd like them reduced in number. If they were hidden away in the half feats like they are now, I think that'd be best.

 

[Thurmas]

I'm torn, because I don't really see the ASI's as being badly designed. However, I think you could certainly make things more interesting and realistic, although more complicated.

My biggest complaint with them, is I don't see them being a true reflection on how improving yourself works. I'd rather see feats that add to specific ways you improve yourself.

For example, you don't really get more intelligent as you go through life once you reach a certain age. You get more educated and may learn how to do things better, but your base intelligence doesn't really go up. Same IQ at 18 as you have at 65. So instead of your intelligence increasing in game, your take a feat that makes you more adept at spell casting, through studying and practice. One feat may increase your spell attack modifier. Another feat may increase your spell DC. A third might increase your knowledge learned. You are still just as smart as you were before, but your ability to apply that intelligence as improved, based on what you see as a priority.

The same could be done for others. Instead of increasing your strength, you become more adept at athletics, or at melee combat, or at lifting heavy things. Instead of dexterity, you become a better archer, or better at dodging attacks. None of these things change who you are fundamentally as a person, but improve the specific things you have striven to improve on as your progress through levels.

You end up probably not being as powerful as a straight ASI, but you do end up with a character more closely resembling the image in your head. I know for me, if I were to play a fighter, I would strive to get my strength to 20 to be good with a sword. That 20 represents a pretty darn strong person, but the character image in my head certainly doesn't picture the Mountain from GoT. It's closer to Bronn or John Snow. I need the 20 for melee ability, not for raw muscles. The result is a conflicting character for stats vs image since I can only get one while getting the other.

In the end, I think the game works find the way it is, but I would certainly be interested to see an alternative.

 

[ccs]

I'm fine with ASIs.
They allow me show my characters actually getting better as they advance.
For ex;
1) My 1/2ling warlock. She was a child when she started adventuring. 11 years old. She was not as strong as an adult 1/2ling. And she certainly wasn't very wise.
As times passed, as she's traipsed about the Realms & encountered all kinds of things, as she's lvd up? She's gotten stronger. And wiser.
Without ASIs? This growth would be pretty hard to show mechanically.
2) Another character (in a PF game) started with an average Cha. But over time & lvs they developed leadership skills. Shown mostly by increases in Cha (not at all thier classes primary skill) & eventually took the dreaded Leadership feat.
Once again, pretty hard to develop without ASIs....

 

[Greg Benage]

I'm okay with ASIs. In AD&D, at least the way we played it, characters who lived into mid-levels wound up with attribute-boosting items anyway. I played enough published modules and convention events to be pretty sure this wasn't an exception. I feel the same way about cantrips, actually: if there's a difference from the caster having a rack of wands in his belt, it's a positive difference.

I would reduce ability modifiers to something like the -3 to +3 of B/X, and I'd bump up proficiency bonus both to offset the reduced ability score modifiers and what I perceive as a bit too much randomness/dependence on the d20 roll in the system.

But, honestly, not that big a deal.

 

[hejtmane]

I think it's more of "changing just this in a vacuum will have these effects I find undesirable". If you're willing to adjust the system more then just banning ASIs those can definitely be worked around.

And if you don't agree with me, my gnomish paladin will prick you with his rapier.

He is a gnome he should be dead; because all gnomes are evil and should be killed on the spot.

Remeber people the best gnome is a dead gnome.


This is the end of our regularly scheduled public announcement.

Happy Gnome hunting

 

[Caliban]

I actually think ASI's are somewhat "realistic" (not that I think being realistic is a useful goal in a fantasy game). Or at least, no less realistic than static scores.

In real life your physical and mental attributes are not static - they change based on your level of training (mental and physical), your diet and your health.

A college athlete or power lifter have enhanced physical abilities due to training that builds on their natural ability.

A scientist or engineer goes to college and gains enhanced mental abilities due to training and education that builds on their natural ability.

An entertainer or musician practices those skills and learns how to present themselves and manipulate an audience to get a reaction. (Increased Charisma in D&D terms.)

Where ASI's fall short of reality is that you don't have to do anything specific to train the attributes you are increasing. It just happens when you gain 4 levels in a class - you don't have to put your ASI's in to an attribute favored by that class (although most people will). It also falls short of reality in that your abilities only ever go up, you don't get weaker or less mentally alert (or whatever) if you stop practicing your skills, or if you get sick, or as you age.

Because this is a game, not a reality simulator.

 

[Lanefan]

I voted "Yes, get rid of 'em" because there's no option for "keep them but severely slow them down".

My #1 complaint about ASIs is that it's either them or Feats. I want to take the Feats, but my innner optimizer makes me take the ASIs. Boring.

Simple solution: do away with feats as well.

Additionally, my inner grognard finds this constant ability creep to be newfangled and lacking in character. It all started with that damned Cavalier in Dragon magazine way back when.

The percentile-increment idea from the 1e Cavalier is brilliant - it allows for improvement of stats as you level up, but it's slow. We use it for all classes, and over 8 or 10 levels your primary stat will usually go up by 1 (2 if you're really lucky!) and your secondary stat may or may not go up at all.

Also, back in the day if you found something that increased an ability score it was like winning the lottery. I miss that.

Absolutely agreed!

I'd be totally fine with no ASIs at all (again, except for the occasional rare events like Deck of Many Things), but if so then it becomes even more imperative to find a use for odd-numbered ability scores.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record, I think, but...non-linear bonuses a la 0-1-2e?

Lanefan

 

[Caliban]

I voted "Yes, get rid of 'em" because there's no option for "keep them but severely slow them down".

Simple solution: do away with feats as well.

The percentile-increment idea from the 1e Cavalier is brilliant - it allows for improvement of stats as you level up, but it's slow. We use it for all classes, and over 8 or 10 levels your primary stat will usually go up by 1 (2 if you're really lucky!) and your secondary stat may or may not go up at all.

Absolutely agreed!

I'm starting to sound like a broken record, I think, but...non-linear bonuses a la 0-1-2e?

Lanefan

I thought you didn't play 5e?