D&D 5E Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)

[Scott Christian]

Confession: my most beloved character ever was an elf fighter/magic-user with 18/33 strength and another 18 somewhere, too. I didn't make him: I asked an older kid who actually owned the books to make me my first character and that's what he gave me. Started me down the long road to powergaming hell, I guess. ("First one's free, kid.")

P.S. I named my first sailboat after that character.

Ha! My four lifelong friends for 30+ years, at times, still refer to each other as our first character names!

 

[Scott Christian]

But then, just as I do, you don't really count since you're not really arguing in favor of the powergaming choices, are you ?

Well, to be honest, I was never arguing against powergaming. I was arguing that having racial ASIs can add to the game's feel because they are such a powerful influence on character creation. Then, alternately, removing them removes that feeling from the game, and adds another type of feeling.
My objective was to understand the need for floating ASIs, and then, evaluate. I understood from the beginning the need for racial ASIs, at least, I thought I did. But still managed to learn another layer on that front as well.

 

[Maxperson]

I think lore depiction and media influence plays a big role here. Even if stats were somehow hidden, something like the aforementioned Firbolg Classes block in VGM starting with "Most firbolgs are druids, rangers, or fighters" would sway the overall percentage of play simply because of the way it's written in. Same with the pregenerated sheets WotC offers. I imagine a significant portion of players that make up these combination percentages either rely on those depictions and resources due to their experience level or simply enjoy leaning into the provided settings.

But I agree and also don't really follow this thread of intent scrutinizing since the end road seems to hit either "ok, great" or "I don't believe you" and stop there.

I also think a lot of people like playing the racial archetypes. I'd bet a lot of dwarven fighters and clerics are picked because of the archetypes, rather than for optimization(conscious or subconscious) reasons.

 

[Yaarel]

So do I, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the balance of the edition.

Because 5e is reasonably balanced, I have more control over how much I want to imbalance an encounter, whetherbintentionally easy or difficult.

Things dont always go as planned. So I evaluate whether an encounter was easy or difficult, after the enconter is over.

We dont use experience poings or milestones to level up. We count the number of standard encounters. Level 1 takes four encounters to level to 2. The sweet spot levels take about 16 encounters to level. An easy encounter is worth half. A difficult encounter is worth one and a half. A near TPK is worth 2.

I find 5e easy to cause imbalances intentionally, and to accommodate imbalances while leveling.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

What would you do with irregular score races like mountain dwarf, who relatively lose half of a feat in the process of switching to pointbuy only?

For Mountain Dwarves? No change. They have better general bonuses that almost any other race in 5e, but it was practically impossible to actually optimise around them all pre-tashas.

I think that their non-ASI based racial features are as balanced against other races' non-ASI racial features as well as can be.

For me, the actual numbers dont matter. If the standard for everyone is beween 10 and 14, then that is the standard. It is probably fair to say that D&D tradition expects a 16, and players would be disappointed with a high score of 13.

Regardless of the specific costs, I view something like following final results reasonable.

+3, +1, +0, +0, +0, +0
+2, +2, +1, +0, +0, +0
+2, +1, +1, +1, +1, +1



Because of 5e bounded accuracy, I prefer the final numbers to be as tolerably low as possible.

It would appear however, that a significant number of people need a +3 bonus in their primary stat.

I think the suggested points and cost would let everyone be happy with generating the characters they want (other than those who have to roll,) but I wanted other eyeballs evaluating it.

 

[Yaarel]

It would appear however, that a significant number of people need a +3 bonus in their primary stat.

I think the suggested points and cost would let everyone be happy with generating the characters they want (other than those who have to roll,) but I wanted other eyeballs evaluating it.

My main concern about pointbuy is, so far, it doesnt evaluate whether the ability is primary, secondary, or tertiary.

A high score in the primary is worth way more than in other locations. So, pointbuy gives this one too cheap, with lots of points left over to inflate the rest of the abilities.

Even the secondary ability should add a "tax" when pointbuying its cost.

 

[Bill Zebub]

My main concern about pointbuy is, so far, it doesnt evaluate whether the ability is primary, secondary, or tertiary.

A high score in the primary is worth way more thwn in other locations. So, pointbuy gives this one too cheap, with lots of points left over to inflate the rest of the abilities.

Well, in some ways that's exactly what the point buy scale is supposed to do by getting progressively more expensive. But maybe there should be more points and more tiers, so that the effect is more pronounced.

 

[Yaarel]

Well, in some ways that's exactly what the point buy scale is supposed to do by getting progressively more expensive. But maybe there should be more points and more tiers, so that the effect is more pronounced.

In other words, if a player needs two high scores, the primary should cost more than the secondary, even for the same score. The primary should be probitively expensive, so if investing everything in a very high primary, it should literally cost everything.

Arrays are easier to balance. Pick between two or three arrays, for one high, two high, and three high. It meets most needs.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In other words, if a player needs two high scores, the primary should cost more than the secondary, even for the same score. The primary should be probitively expensive, so if investing everything in a very high primary, it should literally cost everything.

I guess I don't understand why you think a primary attribute should cost more than a secondary score, for a given target. Say, 15. What does that accomplish?

By having attributes cost progressively more you discourage min-maxing. Currently PB only goes to 15, imagine if it went to 18, with a 15-16 costing 3, 16-17 costing 4, and 17-18 costing 5. Sure, you could put an 18 into your primary attribute, but it would cost 21 of your 27 points.

Arrays are easier to balance. Pick between two or three arrays, for one high, two high, and three high. It meets most needs.

What sort of balance? Do you mean the opposite of min-maxing, or do you mean balanced mechanically relative to other characters?

P.S. Could you give an example of what you think an "unbalanced" array is that is possible with Point Buy? That might help me understand what you think the problem is.

 

[Maxperson]

Because 5e is reasonably balanced, I have more control over how much I want to imbalance an encounter, whetherbintentionally easy or difficult.

Things dont always go as planned. So I evaluate whether an encounter was easy or difficult, after the enconter is over.

We dont use experience poings or milestones to level up. We count the number of standard encounters. Level 1 takes four encounters to level to 2. The sweet spot levels take about 16 encounters to level. An easy encounter is worth half. A difficult encounter is worth one and a half. A near TPK is worth 2.

I find 5e easy to cause imbalances intentionally, and to accommodate imbalances while leveling.

That's an interesting method to level up. My players like exp a lot, though, so it would be a tough sell.