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

[clearstream]

This, my friend, is the way to paranoia as there are so many more of those ran rational ones...

Indeed, they are endless.

These are really edge cases, are they not ?

I intended irony

For me, the underpinning value of the current scale is to have increments towards thresholds, which opens up some design space. Perhaps more importantly, the ASI and half-ASI increase the design-ability of the game system. You can see how feats like Fey Touched or Piercer have leveraged them to create fairly well balanced packages. When a designer goes into crafting a feat, they know up front that the value of the feat should be about equal to +2pts on an ability score. It's a really useful tool, and being able to break it into halves is even more useful.

If you take a thorough look at community analysis such as appears in sheets like detect balance, you can see that there are underlying balancing principles that run right through 5e, and ASIs are at the heart of them. Consider Barbarian hit points against Wizard spell slots. The design space is like this

• Constitution tells us that 2pts are worth +1 HP Max/Lvl and +1 Con Save
• Tough tells us that +1 HP Max/Lvl = +1 Con Save (so that +2 HP Max/Lvl = +2pts in Constitution)
• The lowest hit die is d6, the d8 classes are paying one half ASI, the d10 classes are paying one ASI, and the d12 class pays 1.5 ASIs (because it is getting +3 HP Max/Lvl).
• That creates the design space for spell slots, which like hit points scale by level

You only notice that when you deconstruct the class design, to find the unifying evaluations. Similar analysis shows the expected values for damage scaling and so on. TCoE's exposes frankly the anchoring costing for race design (about three ASIs).

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I just think if experience tells us anything, the minority would pick these two:
+2, +2, +1, +0, +0, +0
+2, +1, +1, +1, +1, +1
The vast majority would pick:
+3, +1, +0, +0, +0, +0
I think old school players (thinking of the old school bard) might go down the even distribution road. New layers might too. But, the way 5e feels, power creep looms from what I have seen.

It is all speculation though.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

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

Not only interesting, but that seems really slow. Which is cool if you like long campaigns. Yaarel, if you don't mind me asking, how long does it take you to run a campaign, say to level 14? Thanks.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think it makes perfect sense for all players to use the same method. Granted, I don't see terribly convincing reason to forbid array if rolling is on the table as the results the array offers could come up with rolling. Inverse however is not true. Point buy/array ensures that all characters have equalish stats and sets certain lower an upper limits. So it that is desired it makes perfect sense to forbid rolling as it can produce wildly diverging results.

Just an idea, but they could "optionally" tie different methods to campaign styles listed in the DM's Guide. For example, the Epic Fantasy could have a paragraph added that says something like:
"When creating an epic fantasy character, the dice rolling method of 5d6 - 2L, along with floating ASIs and use of feat at first level is preferable. It allows the player to truly create an epic fantasy hero as described in the novels."
And the Heroic Fantasy method, the one that is listed as D&D's baseline, could be point buy with the use of Tasha's variant floating ASI rules.
And their Sword & Sorcery & Dark Fantasy could suggest standard array with strong use of racial ASIs.

At least there would be a guide for what might best fit a table's playstyle.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think the way to incentivise more varied builds is to get rid of half-feats and, potentially, the +1 / +1 ASI. I personally do not like having odd scores even if I can 'correct' them with a half-feat earlier, as that forces me to take a half-feat for sure for my character which I may not want for flavour or other reasons (perhaps I want a different full feat for build or roleplay purposes).

This kind of leads to the thinking that maybe it is the attribute bonus table that needs to be modified in order for the primary attribute not to hold so much sway. I mean, if you want players being more diverse, then maybe the modifiers need to be more diverse. I know adding more plusses leads to power creep. But I am just throwing it out there.

On a personal note, I have always thought D&D attributes should reflect the differences in greatness. No one cares when someone has a -1 in their dump stat. But, it does seem to bother some players I play with that the difference between someone strong and really really really strong is a mere +1 or +2 at best. Comparing greatness, which is what D&D characters are really all about, leads to comparing this guy to this guy:

I mean, Dustin Porrier is a world class athlete who weighs about 190 there. He is a beast in his own right. But Brian Shaw is a not very human like individual. Give Dustin a 16 or 17 because he is a beast, and Shaw a 20. A small difference in two very real strong men.

 

[Scott Christian]

Let's face it, they exist purely because of tradition. Or the whole ability score does, the modifier is all that is needed. And I actually like this tradition but I'm fully aware that if we were designing a game from scratch, no one in their right might would come up with such an convoluted system.

The attribute number system is the game within the game. It definitely adds a layer, and helps create options such as:

• should I take this feat which does X and Y
• or should I take this feat which does 1/2 of X and makes my 15 a 16.

It is quite a brilliant design in my mind.

 

[le Redoutable]

As for power gamers , the perfect. Example is Songoku from dragon ball Z

 

[Lyxen]

I don't care that you believe that. When it comes to player characters generating their stats using the default version of the rules

The thing is that the default version of the rules is just a piece of paper, it's not a game and it's even less an actual gaming session, these can only exist when a dungeon master has appropriated the rules and is running the game, which implies him making choices about character generation methods if he feels like it, like every other aspect of the game, it's within his rights.

, I'm not budging on this. You enforcing your preference on others for now other reason than you like it better, is not acceptable to me. I don't care if you think the rules of the book give you the right to do so, if the Standard Array was meant to be optional, they would have made it optional like they made point buy.

After that, it's true that rolling and the standard array are in the core rules as alternatives, so a DM, especially a beginning one looking for simple choices is likely to choose that.

What I think is more significant to this discussion, however, is that this points in your direction below as being the standard used by the designers in terms of quantifying standard character powers, and this in turn influences all the computation made about CRs, encounters strengths, etc. See below.

You are deciding that because you think a character with the standard array is boring, a player isn't allowed to use the available option if they do not want to randomize. This is no different than saying that since you find a paladin with a longsword boring, all paladins must use hammers. You don't get to make that call to enforce your vision on a Player Character, they are not a Dungeon Master Character.

This, however, I'm in complete disagreement with. It is every DM's right to enforce rules about character creation, their power, how they are generated, which races and classes are available for play, and ultimately whether any character is allowed to adventure in his world.

Thank the gods, 5e has moved away from the player-centric atrocity that was 3e, which gave players the impression that they had "rights". If the DM is a good one, he will of course try to make his players happy, but it is his right to block attempts to derail the whole campaign for the whole group by players who think that they have "rights" to do as they please.

My apologies in advance if this is not what it means, bu words like player "rights", "agency" etc. have ruined many many games for DMs, when at the same time players (often the same) weep for not finding DMs...

And I've shown how the designers decisions lead to the 16 being the most commonly seen prime stat. They did it in three different methods. If that does not show their intent and the point was to have a different result, then they must have expected the majority of people to not play archetypical combos.

On this point, however, I fully agree, it is the basis for computation in the system, so much so that powergamers who create more powerful characters than this are then the first one to complain that the encounter system is broken.

It does not mean that characters have to be created like this, and especially not using specific method, but it is the standard that drove the computations of the rest of the system.

 

[Scott Christian]

Sorry for the numerous posts, but seeing some other threads, I sometimes notice a theme of why this class is terrible or this one is overpowered. That said, what makes them terrible or overpowered? Could it be damage output? If so, this is something directly tied to the primary attribute score.

 

[Scott Christian]

This, however, I'm in complete disagreement with. It is every DM's right to enforce rules about character creation, their power, how they are generated, which races and classes are available for play, and ultimately whether any character is allowed to adventure in his world.

Thank the gods, 5e has moved away from the player-centric atrocity that was 3e, which gave players the impression that they had "rights". If the DM is a good one, he will of course try to make his players happy, but it is his right to block attempts to derail the whole campaign for the whole group by players who think that they have "rights" to do as they please.

I am really curious about this statement. Did you gaming group change during the time between 3e and 5e?