D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm really not a fan of the way ASIs as you level up currently affect the game. I would like to see them either removed or granted to more than one ability score. As is it results to even more specialization as characters level up when characters are already specialized enough at low levels. It also helps make the saving throw math even more bonkers at high levels.

Absolutely. What I do is that at ASI levels characters get both a feat and an ASI, but it is always +1 & +1 ASI, and if you get a +1 from a feat, you can't stack it with these either. (Characters can start with 16, 17, or 18 in their best score, depending on the species.) So this means they bump two or three scores by one, making maintaining secondary or even tertiary scores at decent levels more viable. And as +2 is not an option, it makes starting with an odd score an equally valid choice.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think that is an useful way to look at it. You just lumped my most preferred (floating with restrictions) and least preferred (floating without restrictions) choices together. And observation that completely floating ASIs and no ASIs are basically the same is essentially correct. Both are about the species choice not affecting the ability scores at all.

Either you lump them together or all of them have to be completely separate. What is useless is picking and choosing based on what you like. The categories I used are informative in figuring out what percentage of the voters are okay with "some form of." It's not saying that you like one of the other categories.

Let's say the company was doing a real poll and it discovered that 81% of people want some form of floating. It would be worthwhile for them to give some form of floating and then break it down from there to see which way they want to go. At that point you might or might not get your most liked or least liked method.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If I had my way (in the modern game that is), I would allow ASIs (fixed) for first level, but remove them entirely from character progression. That way, feats are incentivized.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Either you lump them together or all of them have to be completely separate. What is useless is picking and choosing based on what you like. The categories I used are informative in figuring out what percentage of the voters are okay with "some form of." It's not saying that you like one of the other categories.

Let's say the company was doing a real poll and it discovered that 81% of people want some form of floating. It would be worthwhile for them to give some form of floating and then break it down from there to see which way they want to go. At that point you might or might not get your most liked or least liked method.

It's not useful, because you only look at the tool and not the end result. It makes far more sense to first decide what outcome is wanted and then devise tools to achieve it. The core question is should ability scores be influenced by the species choice or not. Once that is answered, then we can quibble about how exactly to do it.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

If you did a poll of children, I bet 100% would say they want ice cream for breakfast. I get the idea of "the customer is always right", but that is only until the customer gets something without fully understanding the impact. If WOTC did a poll asking "should all chars start with a 20 in one stat?", you can bet a majority would say yes. So, the integrity of the game is at stake with this floating ASI stuff.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

It's not useful, because you only look at the tool and not the end result. It makes far more sense to first decide what outcome is wanted and then devise tools to achieve it. The core question is should ability scores be influenced by the species choice or not. Once that is answered, then we can quibble about how exactly to do it.

I do want to point out that my poll was deliberately generalized. I do not say where ASIs would originate from, just asked if you would include them, and if so in what manner.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not useful, because you only look at the tool and not the end result. It makes far more sense to first decide what outcome is wanted and then devise tools to achieve it. The core question is should ability scores be influenced by the species choice or not. Once that is answered, then we can quibble about how exactly to do it.

Before you can decide the outcome, you need to figure out which outcome you want to achieve. Grouping them together accomplishes that as I demonstrated. You look to see which grouping has much stronger support. In this case none do. 39% vs. 30% isn't enough to warrant changing things. Nor are the three largest categories of Fixed ASIs Including Negatives: 16.7% vs. Floating Without Restrictions: 23.8% vs. No ASIs: 28.6%. There isn't a clear enough leader to warrant changing things. Too many will be pissed off no matter which way you go. Going by our numbers anyway. No idea what D&D players at large want.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Before you can decide the outcome, you need to figure out which outcome you want to achieve. Grouping them together accomplishes that as I demonstrated. You look to see which grouping has much stronger support. In this case none do. 39% vs. 30% isn't enough to warrant changing things. Nor are the three largest categories of Fixed ASIs Including Negatives: 16.7% vs. Floating Without Restrictions: 23.8% vs. No ASIs: 28.6%. There isn't a clear enough leader to warrant changing things. Too many will be pissed off no matter which way you go. Going by our numbers anyway. No idea what D&D players at large want.

You're really not making sense. There are reasons for why people favour certain options, and those have no commonalities across the axis you propose.

 

[Scott Christian]

I prefer the base rules be more open, and allowing individual tables to restrict if they see fit.

I find it much easier to open a table than restrict a table. So I feel, just from my experience, the reverse of this should be implemented.

 

[Minigiant]

Nope, it's not a question of comfort zone, it's a question of preferences (I like my fantasy races to be widely diverse, including in stats), respect ours, we'll respect yours.

I like my fantasy races diverse too.

I just don't like D&D's ultraconservative design forcing it to constantly bandaid itself later.

I find it much easier to open a table than restrict a table. So I feel, just from my experience, the reverse of this should be implemented.

It's easier still to offer a few options and let the table choose which option they want.