S
Cute. Thanks for making blocking you an easy decision.
Remathilis
Legend
While in theory, I could get behind removing ASI, in practice it would take a HUGE decoupling of ability scores from the game to do properly.
Back in AD&D, despite comments to the contrary, super-high ability scores were a practical necessity. A fighter got little-to-no benefit from his strength score unless it was an 18 (%); since a +1 to damage came at 16 and a +1 to hit came at 17. Wizards needed and 18 Int to use 9th level spells (and Int controlled your spells known per level and % chance to learn them), while priests needed an 18 to use 7th level spells. Rogues gained nearly 50 free skill points to their thief skills with an 18 Dex (25 for 17, 5 for a 16). Oh, and you got 10% bonus XP if you had a 16 in your prime score. So in game which clearly prioritized 16+ scores and provided no way of raising them outside of DM-controlled magical effects, I found an uncanny ability in most of the players I played with to roll an 17 or 18 once of every 6 rolls on 4d6/drop lowest. (That is, I cannot recall more than a handful of PCs not starting with a 17 or 18 in prime out of hundreds of AD&D PCs rolled up). There were a lot of prodigal demi-gods adventuring in those days.
After several failed implementations of ASI's, I think 5e finally hit the right note. Its far more possible to start with a 14, 15 or 16 and "grow" into those 18s and higher over the campaign rather than start the game with those "rolled" 18s needed for when your are high level. If want to get ride of them, unless you are willing to return to the halcyon days of "epic rolled PCs", you'd have to divorce ability score modifiers from things like hitting, damaging, AC, HP, Saves, and Skills so that the PCs don't feel that not having a 18 (now or later) is going to gimp their character. That would require a lot of rethinking on the relationship between ability scores, classes, and combat.
And its something I don't see happening.
Back in AD&D, despite comments to the contrary, super-high ability scores were a practical necessity. A fighter got little-to-no benefit from his strength score unless it was an 18 (%); since a +1 to damage came at 16 and a +1 to hit came at 17. Wizards needed and 18 Int to use 9th level spells (and Int controlled your spells known per level and % chance to learn them), while priests needed an 18 to use 7th level spells. Rogues gained nearly 50 free skill points to their thief skills with an 18 Dex (25 for 17, 5 for a 16). Oh, and you got 10% bonus XP if you had a 16 in your prime score. So in game which clearly prioritized 16+ scores and provided no way of raising them outside of DM-controlled magical effects, I found an uncanny ability in most of the players I played with to roll an 17 or 18 once of every 6 rolls on 4d6/drop lowest. (That is, I cannot recall more than a handful of PCs not starting with a 17 or 18 in prime out of hundreds of AD&D PCs rolled up). There were a lot of prodigal demi-gods adventuring in those days.
After several failed implementations of ASI's, I think 5e finally hit the right note. Its far more possible to start with a 14, 15 or 16 and "grow" into those 18s and higher over the campaign rather than start the game with those "rolled" 18s needed for when your are high level. If want to get ride of them, unless you are willing to return to the halcyon days of "epic rolled PCs", you'd have to divorce ability score modifiers from things like hitting, damaging, AC, HP, Saves, and Skills so that the PCs don't feel that not having a 18 (now or later) is going to gimp their character. That would require a lot of rethinking on the relationship between ability scores, classes, and combat.
And its something I don't see happening.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
All fine except take off the hard-cap so if someone with an 18 finds an item or pulls a Deck card that jumps that stat up it can go there. 19 gives +4.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I know you're being sarcastic here, but ever since 3e came out it does seem like more of the game revolves around creating characters than playing them...Because that's the whole game. Just creating characters.
But that 'baking in' would make those things more fixed, instead of more fluid. I'm saying ASIs make the 'bonuses' and development you get as you level more about the person than the race or the class, and it allows you more customization.
Right now, by putting my ASI's and feats in different spots, I can build significantly different characters in the same class. Like, with my Druid, (with 17 WIS and 16 CON) I can go all in on Wis+1/Con+1, Resilient Con+1, Wis+2, Warcaster, Con+2, and make his spellcasting unstoppable - maximum possible spell DCs, hit points, and Concentration checks.
Or, what I'm doing instead, because the party is shaping up to be less power-gamey and more character driven, is Spell Sniper (Thorn Whip), Observant Wis+1, Resilient Con+1, Magic Initiate (Sorcerer), and Alert. So, instead of putting all my focus on spells, I'm taking all the feats that puts him on a progression of shedding objects (i.e who needs a scimitar or armor when you have Thorn Whip and Mage Armor?) and becoming more and more in touch with his surroundings (Observant and Alert).
Now, maybe you *want* a game that's more rigid, less flexible, more predicated on racial characteristics and class roles. That's fine, but I don't want it, and I think the genie is out of the bottle - RPGs have been customizable in paper and video game form for longer than not, and there's no reason to go back now.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
I don't deny that. But if we're going to support a modular system, if we're going to support reducing complexity and bloat and options, then we're arguing for a more static game system. The "leveling treadmill" is designed specifically to keep people in the game. Sure, a good DM can keep people in the game even if they never level up at all! But then that begs the question: if what the game rules really boil down to is "Have a great DM!" then do we need the rules? Do we need rules for a system that never evolves? Never grows? Never allows players to grow except in one way? Can't we just replace that with a good writer and an interesting story? Like, a novel?
I mean heck, I LOVE building characters. But I thought the whole ASI/Feat option thing was put in there FOR people who wanted less. Who wanted simplicity now it sounds like that same group is complaining about that simplicity and saying that characters only choices are to increase in complexity! I'm really confused.
And beyond that I don't understand any of their argument claiming one can become more skilled...but not...smarter?
Satyrn
First Post
So if I added up the time spent in all my game sessions, you think we'd have spent more time creating our characters instead of playing them?
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Well, yes; even a completely static game still needs rules of some sort in order to be playable.
We could, I suppose, but it wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
Not sure what you're getting at here. My take is that having feats in the game at all still represent more complexity than I'd like to see, and ASI's as 5e has them are far too generous.
Yeah, that's always been one of those game aspects that makes less and less sense the closer it's looked at.
When all the overlying gype is peeled off, it comes down to why each person plays the game. Do they play primarily for the story and at-the-time events with levelling-up and ability improvements both infrequent and seen as a side-effect of play, or do they play primarily for the frequent level-ups and to watch their powers increase while the story goes by as no more than a distraction. The first type need a good creative DM and whatever system, while the second type need a good solid system and whatever as a DM.
I've seen (and played with, and DMed) both these types of players. I far prefer the story-first type, and am mostly such myself.
Lan-"and a slow- or no-advancement game also means you can have an open-ended story and-or campaign without having to worry about getting to levels higher than the system was designed to handle"-efan
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Likely not - I too was being a bit sarcastic - but I think you'd be hard put to deny the trend in focus towards character build (gads I hate that term!) over time.
Similar Threads
- Poll
