D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Lanefan]

You adjust the rolling method to one that produces higher expected results. There are lots of ways one can do this. My preferred method is 4d6 drop lowest 7 times, keep the best 6 scores. Rounding to the nearest whole number, this produces expected results of 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, which gives us our improved array.

For whatever reason I've always looked at averages rather than expected arrays. Here your average of the six stats is 12.83.

Rolling 5d6-drop-2 once for each stat gives an average of, I think, about 13.1; which in effect is +1 to two of your six listed stats.

Which would require 32 points to generate with point buy; 5 more than the standard array, which happens to be the amount of points toit would cost to increase a primary ability by 2 and a secondary ability by 1. So, by using this dice generation method, this array, and 32 point buy, I’ve effectively created a floating +2/+1, integrated directly into the ability score generation methods instead of being an extra step.

Allowing a seventh roll also has a side effect of reducing the chance greatly of a character starting with a very low score, as it becomes a "dump roll". Whether this is a feature, a bug, or neither is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Charlaquin]

For whatever reason I've always looked at averages rather than expected arrays. Here your average of the six stats is 12.83.

Yup, which is a little higher than the average of the expected array it produces (again, rounding to the nearest whole number). Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Allowing a seventh roll also has a side effect of reducing the chance greatly of a character starting with a very low score, as it becomes a "dump roll". Whether this is a feature, a bug, or neither is in the eye of the beholder.

Indeed. For me it’s a feature, but it could easily be a bug or neutral to others.

I also provide the option to take a Feat instead of rolling a 7th score, (or take the standard array and a Feat instead of the improved array, or 27 point buy and a Feat instead of 32 point buy).

 

[clearstream]

I assume you mean from race? None, just increase the point buy/array and make the method for rolling starting ability scores more generous.

I like the mixture of some random, some choice, that is lost if the method for rolling starting ability scores is more generous. Unless more generous means floating ASIs in some form or other.

 

[clearstream]

Your point buy numbers are off slightly. Right now the standard array allows 17, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 after ASIs are added. To get that with point buy, you have to allow the purchase of a 17, which would be 4 over the 15 cost, and the 15 would be 2 higher than the 14, for 6 points over the current amount, so 33 points. Of course, rolling allows you to start with a 20 with ASIs, which would be 21 points all by itself. By getting rid of ASIs, you are gimping the potential of rolls by quite a bit more than one extra rolled stat accounts for.

For me the issue is not so much the option to roll higher numbers, but to roll some numbers and then deterministically tweak a few of them toward my character concept.

 

[Maxperson]

For me the issue is not so much the option to roll higher numbers, but to roll some numbers and then deterministically tweak a few of them toward my character concept.

Yeah. I think that's the case for most people, but if you get lucky, you can roll that 18, then deterministically tweak it to an 20.

Usually that won't be the case, but it does happen. My last character was a Bladesinger who started at level 1 with a 20(18+2) dex and 17(16+1) int. The dice were on fire that night.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So, I ask you - where are you getting your sample for that impression?

And, before you answer, do we need to discuss representative samples and the bias that arises because people who are happy with a thing will not feel a need to speak about it?

Sure, my impression is from the general discussion of them across multiple forums and Discords. I can't pretend to have a "representative sample". Sadly no-one except perhaps WotC do.

And WotC decided that, for whatever reason, ASIs needed changing before even a half-edition or the like.

My experience is that whilst complainers will initiate discussions and be louder about things, in established communities people who like a thing will roll out to defend that thing, often in numbers, albeit with less vehemence. And when a game company threatens a beloved thing, the defenders will go loud. I've seen this across decades of internet arguments about games.

The defenders going loud is not what I've see with ASIs.

Rather instead of defending them people tended to suggest alternative changes (or even removing them entirely), and even when WotC decided they were coming for them I saw very few posts here or elsewhere defending the exact status quo. Some people like the concept of fixed ASIs, but even they often strongly disliked the current WotC implementation (the failure to use penalties was much criticised).

I'm sure some percentage liked the status quo, but based on what I've seen, and accounting for squeaky wheels (but also "WotC are coming for this feature! Rally! Rally!") , it was a small one compared to say 5E approaches to class design or even, I hate to admit it, 5E approaches to semi-Vancian casting. Hell, I feel like more people like Monks as they are than ASIs.

Personally I was surprised because I expected people to be really mad. Personally I didn't even think above removing or letting players change them before the discussion. Fish don't know about water and all that. But once it started I knew I wanted them to be changed and would have been happy with a number of outcomes (free choice, class based, removed, etc.).

I don't know if this convinces you of anything but I hope it shows it isn't an entirely idle and ill-considered opinion on my part.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I come to the conclusion, that I don't want ASI. I would then also ditch the standard array for a standard point buy that starts at 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 and then gives 6 extra points to distributeas you wish.

That way you can still start with 16, 16, 13, 12, 10, 8. You can however also start with 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 8 or even 16, 14, 13, 12, 12, 10.
Or even more crazy, 15, 14, 13, 12, 12, 12 to make most of your ability score increases.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The current system is just crap and doesn't satisfy anyone.

While I don't like the current system either, it is a hotfix, that as the poll suggests, that there are people out their who are more or less satisfied.

 

[Azzy]

Then you also have to increase rolling......................................which is done with ASIs.

I'm not sure that you'd need to increase rolling. According to this breakdown of 4d6, Drop Lowest, the Standard Array falls short of rolling—instead, the Standard Array should be 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9.

 

[Minigiant]

Here's the thing to me.

The D&D race design is a straightjacket.

Not to making characters. But to designing races.

As a whole, D&D fans are overly concerned with how thinks look and not how they work.

Or in big fat dumb dumb terms.

The issue is not fixed or floating ASI. It's is making almost every race a +2/+1 race just for aesthetics.

If a race is supposed to be strong, it should have more than +2 Strength.

"Well you can't have a PC at level 1 with 22 Strength!"

Well why not? It is only +2 up from the 18 for hit/damage. Just give the race a negative.

"Well you can't have negatives. It removes class options for races!"

Well why does it? If Orcs have a int penalty, why can't you design weapon and melee spells for orc wizards to attack with their 18 STR? Why can't orcs, goliaths, and minotaurs use their crazy high STR to headlock a charm/dominate spell right into your face. Good luck resisting that.

And if a race doesn't have real ability score aspects attached to the race, then it doesn't need Ability Score Increases. Genasi are part djinn. How about cut the racial ASI and make it more elemental or genie?